Judicial Review

[BACK OF THE NET]

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 ?

If a solicitor makes false legal representation on behalf of an alleged client, that is fraud.

If the solicitor cannot provide, and when legally asked under law to demonstrate and provide the relevant data and paperwork as to establish legal representation could have been made, and profit made from that legal representation can be thereafter claimed, that is fraud.

[BACK OF THE NET]

If a solicitor makes false legal representation on behalf of an alleged client, that is fraud.

If the solicitor cannot provide, and when legally asked under law to demonstrate and provide the relevant data and paperwork as to establish legal representation could have been made, and profit made from that legal representation can be thereafter claimed, that is fraud.

And in this case the profit unlawfully claimed and received came from the public purse, public funding.

[EXC]

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

The court isn't going to award a default judgment of £50k on the basis that the defendant simply didn't respond to the claim too easily and rightly so. That's where their discretion is applied. In any event default judgments are easily challengeable because lots of claims are made to old addresses etc..

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

What Amethyst means is that you refused to engage with the strike out application when you were given the opportunity. You can't pick & choose which parts of the process you want to engage with.

[R0b]

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.

Seems like I have touched a nerve. Is my response curt, sure but I'm not going to dilly dally and tell you what you want to hear. As Ame has already said, that isn't helpful - but just because you don't like my response, that certainly doesn't mean that I am abusive.

I called you out as a chancer because you are focusing on all the wrong things, avoiding questions that are being asked of you, of if you have provided information, it seems drip-fed. All of that combined, it's not unreasonable for someone to think you are just having a bit of a whinge because things didn't go your way.

You are still continuing to latch onto the fact the court didn't follow procedures and your judicial review application has been rejected. The courts can (and will) do as they please. If the court tells you to shove your application where the sun doesn't shine then it can do, but your only recourse is to appeal to the senior court and argue that the decision of the lower court was wrong.

You have been told on several instances that judicial review is not the correct process. Time and time again the courts have repeated themselves by saying that the correct route relating to a decision by the court or the rules, is an application by way of appeal, not judicial review. Stop thinking that judicial review is the way to go because it is not.

You are also going on about the court not following procedure but you have yet to answer the question raised by myself and others around whether or not the strike out application was submitted before the deadline to file the defence. If it was filed before the deadline, then your complaint that the court did not deal with the correct procedures is null and void since the rules state that default judgment cannot be applied for if an application to strike out has been made and the court has not disposed of that application.

Even if you are correct that the court did not follow the correct procedures, your only recourse is to make an appeal. You also had the opportunity to raise that point at the strike out hearing but you made the conscious decision not to go which resulting in your claim being struck out - the blame falls squarely on you for making that decision whether you like it or not.

I can see that you first started the thread on 17th October and we are no at the 29th, and that's a lot of time in the eyes of the court. You haven't done anything to move this forward (other than to have a moan). I've already set out what your next steps should be in my previous, and if you were actually serious about pursuing your claim, then you will take on board what I have said. If you choose not to do anything, I think that only reinforces my original view.

[pt2537]

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 to say i agree with what Rob says here, requests for default judgment arent automatically guaranteed, CPR 12.3(1) is clear that a party may obtain, not an automatic entitlement, it is at the discretion of the Court. The Court may have had a reason no to enter judgment, for example, the court may have received a defence albeit out of time, or the Court may have received a summary judgment application meaning no defence is needed. The Court retains discretion on judgment in default.

I feel Rob is also right on the point about the application ,and the application of the Denton principles to an application to set aside. Im sorry this wont be what you want to read but sometimes people need to be told bluntly, afterall would you prefer to be told you have a great case when you dont? would you prefer to be told to go and spaff £10k up the wall in wasted costs? Sometimes , no matter how hard it is, we have to accept that the approach we are taking is wrong.

I cannot see how you would get permission to review the decision, it would arguably fall at the first hurdle

[Manxman]

OP - the background to this sounds very similar to a 43 page 1000+ post on the Consumer Action Group forum by a poster called callum1999. Unfortunately the post petered out a couple of years ago as it seemed to be going in circles. If I recall correctly, it was all about whether the poster had or had not engaged a firm of solicitors to act on their behalf in a personal injury claim against the poster's landlord (a council I believe) who had allowed a property to fall into disrepair. (Actually, it was about a lot of other different things too, including a complaint to the ICO).

Might be worth trying to find to see what happened.

[pt2537]

OP - the background to this sounds very similar to a 43 page 1000+ post on the Consumer Action Group forum by a poster called callum1999. Unfortunately the post petered out a couple of years ago as it seemed to be going in circles. If I recall correctly, it was all about whether the poster had or had not engaged a firm of solicitors to act on their behalf in a personal injury claim against the poster's landlord (a council I believe) who had allowed a property to fall into disrepair. (Actually, it was about a lot of other different things too, including a complaint to the ICO).

Might be worth trying to find to see what happened.

Im not sure how that would be helpful?

The issues here in this case are pretty much as Rob has highlighted. The Court retains discretion to allow default judgment, and it is not something that could be judicially reviewed. There is very little the OP could gain by reading 43pages on another forum, it seems to me the facts of this case speak for themselves

[Manxman]

I agree completely with you and Rob. There's no avenue for judicial review which answers the OP's question as asked.

I was simply interested in the apparent similarity between the two threads. The other thread just ran on and on. Unfortunately, the OP in that thread simply refused to accept any advice offered by other posters.

[Amethyst]

This thread https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.u...ligence-claim/ ?

[BACK OF THE NET]

Whilst I fully respect the advice that has been giving, I do feel the most relevant fact in this matter has not been considered as to the importance that it warrants imo.

All parties and also the Courts have an obligation and a duty and show if necessary, as is the case that they have adhered to the rules under CPR.

Quite clearly, the fact that the Court, when it was obliged to adhere the rules of the Court evidently failed and at the first hurdle, by not entering judgment in default.

What ever has gone on thereafter, and in law, is irrelevant until the first issue, has been correctly entered.

I am quite sure that if those advising were denied a legitimate judgment in their favour, they would not be of the opinion that they are kindly giving me.

[Amethyst]

The court has discretion.

I don't think you have given the actual dates of claim issue and date of application to strike as yet either.

[EXC]

Whilst I fully respect the advice that has been giving, I do feel the most relevant fact in this matter has not been considered as to the importance that it warrants imo.

All parties and also the Courts have an obligation and a duty and show if necessary, as is the case that they have adhered to the rules under CPR.

Quite clearly, the fact that the Court, when it was obliged to adhere the rules of the Court evidently failed and at the first hurdle, by not entering judgment in default.

What ever has gone on thereafter, and in law, is irrelevant until the first issue, has been correctly entered.

I am quite sure that if those advising were denied a legitimate judgment in their favour, they would not be of the opinion that they are kindly giving me.

I know what you're saying and it must be frustrating when you'd thought you'd crossed the line but as pt2537 put it:

requests for default judgment arent automatically guaranteed, CPR 12.3(1) is clear that a party may obtain, not an automatic entitlement, it is at the discretion of the Court.

The key word is ''may'' and not ''must'' and that's where the court's discretion comes in and there's a good reason for it. If default judgment for claims worth £50k a pop were automatic if the defendant failed to respond to the claim there'd be an entire industry firing off claims to all & sundry because for whatever reason a few defendants won't respond.

In the County Courts default judgments have become a real scourge because claimants will knowingly issue claims to old addresses etc so they can take advantage of default judgments when the defendant doesn't respond, so courts will be very wary of issuing default judgments especially for large sums.

Think about it.

[Amethyst]

Is this the claim that had the particulars of claim struck out by the court in August 2016?

[R0b]

Actually we have addressed the point you think is most important. I mentioned in an earlier post your option is to appeal or set aside the decision to strike out your claim. Regardless of how unfair you think the process, decision or lack of is, those are your options.

The English legal system like many things in this world is far from perfect but what it does have going for it is the appeals system. The hierarchy is such that a decision of the lower court can be appealed to the senior court to consider whether your appeal has any merit.

I'm quite sure that if any of us were denied what we considered to be a legitimate judgment we would submit an appeal on that basis and ask the senior court or judge to overrule the lower court's decision.

There really is only so many times we can dice it and tell you about your options which you do not appear to be taking on board.

[BACK OF THE NET]

The court has discretion.

I don't think you have given the actual dates of claim issue and date of application to strike as yet either.

The claim was issued by the Court on 30th January 2019 those representing the solicitor application to strike out was made on 3rd May 2019.

In between those dates the Court made an order that the Particulars of claim be served again, this after I applied for summary judgment.

For the record I wrote to the Court and asked them why they had not considered my application but no reason has been giving, and I have not received any correspondence in return or a reason why the Court has not considered that application, nor the reason why the application was denied.