Barrister told porkies in court!

[Gemby]

Hello all

Im new to this site and wonder if you can help me.

I have recently been to court over a credit card debt.
The debt was for £17k with MBNA. The account was then sold to CL Finance and their solicitors, Howard Cohen took me to court.
To cut a long story short, they won. I dont think i stood a chance as the judge seemed to be bias. I guess they all are in these cases.
I looked into the possibility of an appeal but i simply dont have the funds for it.

My question is this...during the trial i had pointed out that the Notice of Assignment was incorrect as the amount differed from the amount owed to MBNA when the account was sold. The difference was only £5, but never the less the NOA was incorrect.
When questioned, the barrister sent by Howard Cohen, who had no real idea of the caes stated, "The difference in the amount must be down to an administration charge" (He clearly had no idea why the amount differed and basically made the admin charge up on the spot)
In her judgment the judge stated that the barrister had told her that the difference was down to an admin charge, and she accepted that.
Can a barrister clearly make things up to deliberately mis-lead a judge?
Do i have any avenues to complain about this?
As previously mentioned, i dont have the funds to appeal but surely this should not be allowed to happen.

Any help greatly received

Gemby

[Angry Cat]

Re: Barrister told porkies in court!

The argued amount: £5, would be considered as, de minimis.

[Angry Cat]

Re: Barrister told porkies in court!

You should have pressed for full disclosure of the Deed of Assignment and;
Deed of Sale.

by Gemby:
the barrister sent by Howard Cohen, who had no real idea of the caes stated, "The difference in the amount must be down to an administration charge" (He clearly had no idea why the amount differed and basically made the admin charge up on the spot)
In her judgment the judge stated that the barrister had told her that the difference was down to an admin charge, and she accepted that.

In reality, one would need much more information about your case in order to be able to advise your next step.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Barrister told porkies in court!

Post deleted by its author

[Gemby]

Re: Barrister told porkies in court!

Thanks for your response Angry Cat, my defense was made up of the following

1. The claimant had failed to comply with a court order to disclose witness statements on time. The order stated that failure to do this would result in the party being "debarred from relying on any such evidence".
The judge just over ruled that order.

2. The claimant had failed to comply with a section 78 request and was therefore not entitled to enforce the agreement.
In response to my request the claimant had sent terms and conditions which were out of date at the time of the agreement. They also sent incorrect current T&C's. I provided the court with evidence that this was the case.
I quoted Judge Waksman in Carey para 119, suggesting that the T&C's ought to be correct.
The Claimant had suggested that as the account was no longer a running account, there was no need for them to comply with my s.78 request. They used Rankine -v- American Express to back this up.
I pointed the Court to the OFT Guidance on s.78 requests. The OFT considers that Rankine does not apply as the ruling was obiter. I also pointed out that in the deed of assignment between the OC and the Claimant, they had both agreed to be bound by OFT guidance.

The Judge stuck with Rankine and stated that as the agreement had come to an end there was no duty for the claimant to reply to my s.78 request and so it didnt matter that they had sent incorrect T&C's. She ruled that the OFT had no bearing on the case.

3. The OC had issued a Default Notice in accordance with s.87(1) CCA 1974. However the OC then sold the account before the 14 day period given to remedy the default. Under s.88(2) they were not entitled to do this. I backed this up with American Express -v- Ian Karl Robert Brandon para 34.
The judge ruled that just because the OC had sold the agreement it didnt mean that the agreement had been terminated. I then posed the question, what if i had remedied the default once the account had been sold, still within the 14 day period, would the claimant whose business is debt collection, have honoured my credit card account? In her judgment the judge stated that that question would have posed an interesting situation. However i hadnt remedied the default so it was irellevant.

4. The Notice of Assignment was incorrect. As previously mentioned the amount on the NoA differed from the amount actually owed. All be it by only £5.
In the case of W F Harrison -v- Burke heard in the court of appeal the appeal judges stated that they thought "the amount ought to be correct " and "the notice must be strictly accurate"
I stated that if the NoA was not accurate then the assignment was not valid under the law of property act 1925 and therefore the claimant had no right of claim.
The barrister for the claimant then suggested that the difference in amounts was due to an admin charge. This was totally untrue and made up on the spot. The barrister had no idea why the amounts differed.
The judge ruled that Harrison -v- Burke was not relevant as the ruling was obiter and instead she chose to accept what the barrister had told her.

Whilst I realise that £5 isnt a great deal of money, if the barister had told the truth and stated that the NoA was actually incorrect, then surely there may have been a different outcome?

Gemby

[Gemby]

Re: Barrister told porkies in court!

[quote=CleverClogs;211483]It would be difficult for any judge not to have been biased when presented with such an inadequate defence as a quibble over £5 on a £17,000 debt. Did you really think it through before you tried such an inadequate and pettifogging argument?
Perhaps you should read the above thread before casting aspertions about inadequate defences. Also, i was under the impression that judges must remain impartial at all times. Is this not the case?

Have you never heard the expression, "de minimis non curat lex"?
Sorry i must have been absent that day!

Good, as that will prevent any more court time being wasted on this nonsense.
It may appear nonsense to you, and of course you are entitled to your opinion.

It is fortunate, however, that the judge was female, as that might deter you from claiming - as so many others have done - that the claimants' barrister and the judge were both Freemasons and that they exchanged secret signs with each other.
It would never be my intention to do anything but tell the truth in court, so the above is not applicable.


Try writing to the Vatican. You may be able to get the barrister excommunicated for being in league with Satan.

I would have expected barristers and other such professionals to have a code of conduct by which they must practice. I didn't reralise law was a religion!

Thanks for your response CleverClogs (You're a right bundle of laugh's)

Gemby/quote]

[leclerc]

Re: Barrister told porkies in court!

Gemby, you have read what "de minimis non curat lex" means, right?

that meaning is what clevercloggs is saying ie

"The law does not concern itself with trifles; - a principle of law, that even if a technical violation of a law appears to exist according to the letter of the law, if the effect is too small to be of consequence, the violation of the law will not be considered as a sufficient cause of action, whether in civil or criminal proceedings."

The bold bit is the one I have highlighted. Unfortunately, whilst CC is perhaps being slightly more in your face than I would(but only slightly), the basic jist of what they are saying is in the quoted bit, ie that £5 on £17000.00 is minimal and does not alter the main facts of the case. Had the difference been a lot more then CC's answer might have been different.

[Gemby]

Re: Barrister told porkies in court!

Hi leclerc

Thanks for your post.

I was actually unaware of what de minimis meant, so thank you for pointing that out.

However, my original post was not intended to argue the merits of my case. I only supplied my defence because Angry Cat requested more details.

I have resigned myself to the fact that i lost in court, and as i do not have the finances to appeal i must accept the judges decision. All be it that i have lost a great deal of faith in the legal system.

The point that i cannot accept, and the point that my original post concearned, is the fact that a barrister blatantly lied in court.

I asked if there are any channels of complaint to deal with this as i deem that sort of behaviour as unacceptable.

Gemby

[CleverClogs]

Re: Barrister told porkies in court!

Post deleted by its author

[WendyB]

Re: Barrister told porkies in court!

With the greatest of respect, Clever Clogs, you don't know that Gemby deliberately set out to avoid the debt. We don't know what circumstances led to the default and ultimately to the courtroom so shouldn't make judgements without knowing all the facts.

I personally would never condone deliberately using CCA etc as a debt avoidance tool, nor would this site. But we don't know that Gemby deliberately set out to do that. All we have is his defence, we don't have any history before that.

And do you really need to be quite so sarcastic and patronising?

[CleverClogs]

Re: Barrister told porkies in court!

Post deleted by its author

[Angry Cat]

Re: Barrister told porkies in court!

CleverClogs, do you really have to post in such a rude and boorish manner?

Or, is it that you think that you really are a clever dick?:
someone who is annoying because they are always right or because they think they are more intelligent than everyone else

[charitynjw]

Re: Barrister told porkies in court!

Hi CC,

I enjoy reading your posts - they are usually very informative.
Got to agree with the others re your forthright manner, though.
Many people come on to these forums looking for a bit of sensible advice - many people cannot afford solicitors, but are looking perhaps for suggestions as to where to go for answers to their particular circumstances, and see these forums as a potential aid.
We all have to start somewhere; unfortunately we are not born with this knowledge.
One thing is for certain, though - forums such as LB have empowered people, & given them the confidence to fight their own battles, armed with a wealth of information.
Your positive (& gentle negative) contributions could add to this.
That's just my 'umble opinion, though.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Barrister told porkies in court!

OK, everyone! I'll edit my posts removing the contents - I was already working though a more considered response to Gemby, anyway.

I'd really not like him/her to end up like Maurice Kellett or the late and little lamented James Frederick Hulbert, both of whom claimed judicial impropriety to the point where their obsession took over their lives.

[Angry Cat]

Re: Barrister told porkies in court!

OK, everyone! I'll edit my posts removing the contents - I was already working though a more considered response to Gemby, anyway.

VIP members who post up on LB, should consider the wordings within their posts before hitting the: submit reply button.

Leagle Beagle, members post on the forum in order to obtain sensible advice, not sarcasm and rudeness.

CleverClogs, your considered response will be welcomed.:beagle: