Judicial Review

[EXC]

Can someone kindly confirm that there are absolutely no legal rights as to seeking an emergency judicial review if a Court or its employees fail to the the proccess to (a) initite, (b) consider such application.

It has been suggested in this thread that Courts would be immune from being subject to a judicial review, kindly advise.

It should be noted that decisions of the High Court or the Court of Appeal cannot be judicially reviewed

http://www.courtroomadvice.co.uk/judicial-review.html

[Amethyst]

The Order was made about two weeks ago and in the County Court, I did not present any evidence nor did I attend.

I was of the opinion that again this was an abuse of process and informed the otherside that I would not be attending their application,as to save costs and time for an application that would supersede the judgment in default should have been entered months earlier, when proceedings were within the High Court.

Hope this helps Amethyst.

There was no reason why the judgment in default of a Defence not being provided, should not have been entered by the Court in my humble opinion.

The Court have allowed the solicitors the opportunity to win the case, but they have not allowed me that same right.

They have, you could have responded and defended against their application to strike out your claim.

(3) The claimant may not obtain a default judgment if –

(a) the defendant has applied –

(i) to have the claimant’s statement of case struck out under rule 3.4; or

(ii) for summary judgment under Part 24,

Also after the judgment on the application you'd have a certain amount of time to apply to set aside/vary the ruling on the strike out/summary judgment.



You haven't said what your claim was or the reasons the other party made for striking it out. Nor the exact timeline. ie. I'm not certain of the timeline between your issuing the claim, the deadline for defence/acknowledgment passing, your applying ( by what method ) for default judgment, when the defendant informed the court they had not been served with the claim, when the court decided not to issue a default judgment, when the next deadline for filing a defence passed and when the defendant made their application. I'm not sure if the default judgment was awarded but the defendant immediately applied to set it aside due to lack of service or when the court knew the defendant said they hadn't been served with the claim. ( reasons to set aside default judgment if applicable https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pr...es/part13#13.2 )
Was the claim for a fixed sum or for an amount to be determined by the court ?

EXC has hopefully answered your other query.

[BACK OF THE NET]

http://www.courtroomadvice.co.uk/judicial-review.html

Thank you for that information, it is appreciated.

[BACK OF THE NET]

They have, you could have responded and defended against their application to strike out your claim.



Also after the judgment on the application you'd have a certain amount of time to apply to set aside/vary the ruling on the strike out/summary judgment.



You haven't said what your claim was or the reasons the other party made for striking it out. Nor the exact timeline. ie. I'm not certain of the timeline between your issuing the claim, the deadline for defence/acknowledgment passing, your applying ( by what method ) for default judgment, when the defendant informed the court they had not been served with the claim, when the court decided not to issue a default judgment, when the next deadline for filing a defence passed and when the defendant made their application. I'm not sure if the default judgment was awarded but the defendant immediately applied to set it aside due to lack of service or when the court knew the defendant said they hadn't been served with the claim. ( reasons to set aside default judgment if applicable https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pr...es/part13#13.2 )
Was the claim for a fixed sum or for an amount to be determined by the court ?

EXC has hopefully answered your other query.

The claim was that the solicitor unlawfully made legal representation on my behalf which contravened the Fraud Act 2006, and for a period of near on two years.

A previous claim was made against the solicitor on the grounds that he had acted negligently and as a direct result of that negligence of not claiming damages for two separate accidents, caused by the dire disrepair of the property owned by my landlords who failed to replace or repair an outhouse which was a fire risk, the Court adjudged they were not negligent and dismissed my case, which was a shock giving the circumstances and criticised by Shelter who had established the landlords were vigorously in breach of a number of Acts designed to protect tenants.

The solicitors took over the case from Shelter and on the provision that they would seek court orders including injunctions for the landlords to remove the serious risks, but for two years they did not even attempt to remedy this situation but made profit, be it unlawfully from making false legal representation on me and my families behalf.

The two claims are completely separate, one has dealt with negligence, this one is that the solicitor made false representation because he cannot provide a legitimate contract as to show he could make legal representation on our behalf and profit from that act.

The claim was for an unspecified amount of more than £50,000 Amethyst, hence why it was issued in the High Court as opposed with the County Court where it has somehow ended up.

Hope this helps

[Amethyst]

Ok. The Solicitor you are suing were instructed by you ( referred by Shelter ) to bring a claim and obtain an injunction against your landlord.

They failed ( due to their negligence in the case in your view ) and you sued them for negligence which you lost as the court disagreed.


You have now sued the same solicitors stating they were not actually instructed by you and thus were making false representation ?

What were their strike application reasons? No prospect of success / second bite of the cherry / vexatious ?

The unspecified amount over £50k will be why you didn't get default judgment - it would have to go to a hearing to decide on an amount and that would be notified to the defendant.

Are you on a fee exemption/remission for your court fees ?

[BACK OF THE NET]

I would assume that this matter will be determined by the timing of the applications made at the end of the day.

The fact will remain that the Court had an obligation and a duty to enter judgment in default, whatever happened thereafter, would amount to an abuse of process, that's not me claiming it, this would evidently be based on the rules and procedures of English Civil Law, that's my take for what it is worth anyway.

[Amethyst]

Possibly, although I disagree, had you been awarded the default judgment the solicitors would simply have applied to set it aside and strike it out in any case so it would simply have added further costs. So if you somehow brought a judicial review on the court not adhering to the CPR as you allege, the result you are then asking for would be a default judgment, which would be set aside and struck out so you'd be back where you are again but lighter in pocket.

It sounds like something happened with regards your landlords breaching the rules and shelter supported you in a complaint against them, when it went legal they referred you to a solicitors firm who you don't feel actually did much to further your case and subsequently lost the case against your landlords.

Was there any mention/discussion of appealing that judgment ?

Did you go through the complaints process and to the legal ombudsman / sra at the time ?

[BACK OF THE NET]

Possibly, although I disagree, had you been awarded the default judgment the solicitors would simply have applied to set it aside and strike it out in any case so it would simply have added further costs. So if you somehow brought a judicial review on the court not adhering to the CPR as you allege, the result you are then asking for would be a default judgment, which would be set aside and struck out so you'd be back where you are again but lighter in pocket.

It sounds like something happened with regards your landlords breaching the rules and shelter supported you in a complaint against them, when it went legal they referred you to a solicitors firm who you don't feel actually did much to further your case and subsequently lost the case against your landlords.

Was there any mention/discussion of appealing that judgment ?

Did you go through the complaints process and to the legal ombudsman / sra at the time ?

But I was not awarded a default judgment, and there was no reason why that should have been the case, I understand what you are saying about the solicitors simply applying for the judgment to be set aside or to strike out, but both the Court and the solicitors have never followed the needed procedures to be in a position to rely on what you are advising, of which I fully appreciate.

Both are acting as if judgment in default was made, it was not.

The otherside had the giving opportunity to either file a defence, which they could not, or and make application to strike out, neither was produced and within the time frame allowed under the CPR.

[R0b]

So I'm going to be pretty blunt with my response: you need get over what has happened and stop clinging on to the issue that the court did not process your request for default judgment.

There seems to be a lack of details given by you to actually consider whether you were entitled to be given default judgment. You say you are claiming an unspecified amount over £50k but County Courts have jurisdiction to hear up to £100k so I'm not sure why you actually chose to submit in the High Court. In any event, the High Court has power and discretion to transfer it to the County Court if the criteria is not met for a High Court claim.

It wasn't an abuse of process for the defendant to issue an application to strike out, it was simply (according to you) a late application beyond the 14 day window they were given. I can't see in this thread you have evidence that you requested judgment prior to the application being made and the court confirming this.

Fraud is an extremely serious allegation and the courts take such allegations very seriously which is why it also needs to be properly pleaded. Given your lack of understanding of the CPR I would not be surprised if your pleadings were up to scratch. Presumably you submitted your claim in the Queens Bench Division? Even if you were granted judgment I would be very surprised that a court would refuse to grant any set aside in respect of a fraud allegation, applying the Denton principles.

The fact that you are so hung up on the court not processing your request for default judgment suggests to me that you are a chancer. You refused to attend the hearing on the basis that it was an abuse of process - the mind boggles with that decision when you could have simply turned up and argued your case.

Long and short of it is that if you were actually serious about bringing a claim against the solicitors for fraud you would be making an application to the court by way of appeal or set aside (if applicable) and arguing that the court got this wrong and default judgment should have applied. I think this thread is really just to have a rant about something that didn't go to plan and you've cocked up along way, blaming the court but not doing anything about it.

Now, I could be entirely wrong above, but if you are so confident the court got it wrong, why aren't you pursuing this?

[BACK OF THE NET]

So I'm going to be pretty blunt with my response: you need get over what has happened and stop clinging on to the issue that the court did not process your request for default judgment.

There seems to be a lack of details given by you to actually consider whether you were entitled to be given default judgment. You say you are claiming an unspecified amount over £50k but County Courts have jurisdiction to hear up to £100k so I'm not sure why you actually chose to submit in the High Court. In any event, the High Court has power and discretion to transfer it to the County Court if the criteria is not met for a High Court claim.

It wasn't an abuse of process for the defendant to issue an application to strike out, it was simply (according to you) a late application beyond the 14 day window they were given. I can't see in this thread you have evidence that you requested judgment prior to the application being made and the court confirming this.

Fraud is an extremely serious allegation and the courts take such allegations very seriously which is why it also needs to be properly pleaded. Given your lack of understanding of the CPR I would not be surprised if your pleadings were up to scratch. Presumably you submitted your claim in the Queens Bench Division? Even if you were granted judgment I would be very surprised that a court would refuse to grant any set aside in respect of a fraud allegation, applying the Denton principles.

The fact that you are so hung up on the court not processing your request for default judgment suggests to me that you are a chancer. You refused to attend the hearing on the basis that it was an abuse of process - the mind boggles with that decision when you could have simply turned up and argued your case.

Long and short of it is that if you were actually serious about bringing a claim against the solicitors for fraud you would be making an application to the court by way of appeal or set aside (if applicable) and arguing that the court got this wrong and default judgment should have applied. I think this thread is really just to have a rant about something that didn't go to plan and you've cocked up along way, blaming the court but not doing anything about it.

Now, I could be entirely wrong above, but if you are so confident the court got it wrong, why aren't you pursuing this?

I have reported you, you have to much to say for yourself and you are clearly an abusive individual who needs to wind its neck in.

[EXC]

I have reported you, you have to much to say for yourself and you are clearly an abusive individual who needs to wind its neck in.

R0b may have been blunt but he is right in much of what he said.

[BACK OF THE NET]

R0b may have been blunt but he is right in much of what he said.

Ok, tell me where he is right.

And you do not need to be blunt to put a point of view over, now do you.

[Amethyst]

I can't see that R0bs been abusive, just trying to help - there is no point in agreeing with you for the sake of it - that would just lead you up the garden path and probably end up costing you thousands in costs. A judicial review is the wrong process and the court dealt with the case as it was entitled to do so. Unfortunately you chose not to engage further after you weren't given a default judgment.

[Amethyst]

Going back to your actual case - the court found that the solicitors hadn't acted negligently? Presumably you went through the SRA/LEO first ? I'm not sure how that resulted in you suing the solicitors for acting without being instructed (fraud)?

Shelter had referred you I think ? did you not go through client care etc before they started acting in your case ?

[BACK OF THE NET]

I can't see that R0bs been abusive, just trying to help - there is no point in agreeing with you for the sake of it - that would just lead you up the garden path and probably end up costing you thousands in costs. A judicial review is the wrong process and the court dealt with the case as it was entitled to do so. Unfortunately you chose not to engage further after you weren't given a default judgment.

Calling someone a chancer, is that not abusive?, whether you agree with me is irrelevant, that is your choice.

The court did not deal with the case as they were entitled too, quite the reverse.

If a court has failed to abide by correct and proper procedures which I assume they are obliged in following, the correct course in such event is to apply for a judicial review, why do you feel that I am not entitled as to rely on that process, is it because I am a litigant in person, and a litigant in person should not be afforded that opportunity, as he is not legally qualified as to dare challenge.

I am not sure why you feel that I have not engaged since default judgment was not correctly entered, kindly explain.