And suddenly there was a defence...

[heisenberg]

Re: And suddenly there was a defence...

I haven't even scratched the surface! So much went wrong due to the Court's maladministration and failure to follow CPR… The complaint to MoJ is pending… I really need to get the set aside sorted first. I have no idea what the other side will provide in defence of their wrong doing… other than it will be a pack of lies. Dookist.

I see. Indeed it seems you have had a taste of what people are willing to do when their backs are against the walls. As I have said before on my threads, as soon as litigation begins all ethics disappear at light speed. Then, to top it all off, LiPs face a screwed up system.

[Dookist]

Re: And suddenly there was a defence...

Up to 2011, there was only a 0.5% award of costs against the employee. i don't know the stats up to now. The tribunal has a duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people. Did you appeal to EAT? They could get a charging order on your home but it's very rare that a sale can be forced. You have your rights to property, 25k is at least an adequate amount of security to protect the costs' interest.

Hi OpenLaw15… this is not an employment dispute. The other side keeps threatening an Order for Sale, but there is little, if any equity and it's a joint mortgage. Dookist.

[Dookist]

Re: And suddenly there was a defence...

Dookist, was this a case issued at a Tribunal or a County Court?

Just seen your post - seems it was a County Court case.

It was a land dispute held at the County Court with the Judge sitting for the first time, apparently, prior to which he was an adjudicator… he was obviously flexing his muscles, but he should have adjourned over the matter of audio loop as my right to a fair trial under Art. 6 of the ECHR was denied. I tried to appeal but he just came out with a lot of rubbish, saying there was something wrong with my hearing aids, when I didn't even have hearing aids… it's all in the court transcript with me saying I was waiting to have some fitted on the NHS. He was an absolute monster.

Dookist.

[Openlaw15]

Re: And suddenly there was a defence...

Hi OpenLaw15… this is not an employment dispute. The other side keeps threatening an Order for Sale, but there is little, if any equity and it's a joint mortgage. Dookist.

The other side is not likely to get an Order for Sale. Only a bank has the power to take possession of a property. They have to persuade a judge to get a court's Order for Sale. I would say to the judge that this threat by the other side is tantamount to improper conduct. You could report the judge to an appropriate authority but this will not affect your hearing. If the judge is biased towards you he simply has duty to remove (recuse) himself from the case. Unless the judge has done something seriously wrong, ie raped someone, he's unlikely to get in trouble, as judges have immunity for obvious reasons.

[MIKE770]

Re: And suddenly there was a defence...

The other side is not likely to get an Order for Sale. Only a bank has the power to take possession of a property. They have to persuade a judge to get a court's Order for Sale. I would say to the judge that this threat by the other side is tantamount to improper conduct. You could report the judge to an appropriate authority but this will not affect your hearing. If the judge is biased towards you he simply has duty to remove (recuse) himself from the case. Unless the judge has done something seriously wrong, ie raped someone, he's unlikely to get in trouble, as judges have immunity for obvious reasons.

A lesson they have to learn in the near future = Judge Jeffries thought he was immune!

[heisenberg]

Re: And suddenly there was a defence...

It was a land dispute held at the County Court with the Judge sitting for the first time, apparently, prior to which he was an adjudicator… he was obviously flexing his muscles, but he should have adjourned over the matter of audio loop as my right to a fair trial under Art. 6 of the ECHR was denied. I tried to appeal but he just came out with a lot of rubbish, saying there was something wrong with my hearing aids, when I didn't even have hearing aids… it's all in the court transcript with me saying I was waiting to have some fitted on the NHS. He was an absolute monster.

Dookist.

It seems not only were you denied a right to a fair trial it seems you were also discriminated against by not allowing a reasonable adjustment to facilitate your hearing problems. This is also arguably a human rights violation (Article 14).

It seems you found yourself a bias meathead who calls himself a Judge. I've come across one or two myself.

[heisenberg]

Re: And suddenly there was a defence...

I have just received the other side's skeleton argument in this case in respect to their strike out application. They are doing their level best to hammer my particulars of claim.

I could well be asking them to consent to an amendment in accordance with CPR rule 17.1(2)(a).

They allege my claim is 'vexatious' though they seem to skip over the fact that the essentially left me with no other option of issuing a claim by ignoring my letter before action.

I am however concerned that they will try and recover costs for making the strike out application.

There was of course no CPR Part 18 request.

[heisenberg]

Re: And suddenly there was a defence...

I have to say that because judges have such wide discretion litigation is inherently stressful for any LiP. Indeed, I imagine many people are put off by this and are therefore denied access to justice.

Discrimination cases are inherently difficult to prove and highly risky when it comes to allocation i.e. allocation to the fast track. Of course cuts in legal aid do not help matters.

This article highlights some of the difficulties:

http://www.unity-law.co.uk/media_area/media.htm?id=1

[Dookist]

Re: And suddenly there was a defence...

Yes… even those who have had the benefit of legal training can sometimes find points of law confusing… so how are LiPs supposed to cope, especially those disabled by a hearing problem…there are no allowances made… if you don't know the law and you can't afford to pay someone, you are at a disadvantage.
When it was obvious that I couldn't hear, the trial judge should have adjourned whilst the correct hearing loop was set up… instead, he forced me to participate, telling me he would make sure everyone raised their voices… of course, they didn't and I missed a lot of evidence which I would have argued against, had I been able to hear. I only found out how much I'd missed when I got a copy of the court transcript… by which time it was too late. So very wrong and a travesty of justice. I just hope this set aside will go some way to putting right the wrongs of the past few, stressful years. D.

[wales01man]

Re: And suddenly there was a defence...

The most sensible thing to do when an action is taken against a legal firm is to use a solicitor being a LIP puts the claimant at a disadvantage this is how it works as the claimant has fee remission they could pay for advice if the believe they will win which they must do before taking action

[heisenberg]

Re: And suddenly there was a defence...

Yes… even those who have had the benefit of legal training can sometimes find points of law confusing… so how are LiPs supposed to cope, especially those disabled by a hearing problem…there are no allowances made… if you don't know the law and you can't afford to pay someone, you are at a disadvantage.
When it was obvious that I couldn't hear, the trial judge should have adjourned whilst the correct hearing loop was set up… instead, he forced me to participate, telling me he would make sure everyone raised their voices… of course, they didn't and I missed a lot of evidence which I would have argued against, had I been able to hear. I only found out how much I'd missed when I got a copy of the court transcript… by which time it was too late. So very wrong and a travesty of justice. I just hope this set aside will go some way to putting right the wrongs of the past few, stressful years. D.

Absolutely.

I think your case really highlights how unjust the system is and indeed the judges themselves can be discriminatory. So much for a fair trial.

- - - Updated - - -

The most sensible thing to do when an action is taken against a legal firm is to use a solicitor being a LIP puts the claimant at a disadvantage this is how it works as the claimant has fee remission they could pay for advice if the believe they will win which they must do before taking action

To clarify, this claim is not against a law firm. I have no such claim at the moment.

Those who qualify for a fee remission are usually unable to pay for costly legal advice. Indeed you will find that legal fees soon cost more than the claim is worth.

[Dookist]

Re: And suddenly there was a defence...

CPR is a set of procedural rules (derived from the Civil Procedure Act 1997) which the court must follow and applies to all cases which are issued through the courts. So in saying that the CPR are not law is not quite true and it is further emphasised in the overriding objective (r.1.2(f)) . Otherwise we can all ignore the CPR and not sign statements of truth as they are not lawfully binding .

So… if a lawyer makes an application for an Interim Charging Order, say, but doesn't sign the Statement of Truth which accompanies the application, and the lack of signature goes unchallenged because it is a 'without notice' application, and the ICO is granted…it's perfectly lawful and they can then proceed to a Final CO?