yup Pt2537 is here now too

[Amethyst]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

I'll just quote, easier lol.


LRSP :: Law Reports



Less than 2% of all judgments are reported in law reports series. Decisions of the Supreme Court (previously House of Lords) and the Court of Appeal predominate because of the weight accorded them by the doctrine of precedent. Only a small proportion of the thousands of first instance cases in the High Court are reported.
When a judgment is reported it can be found in a published law report series. When the Law Reports were proposed in 1863, it was suggested that they should include all cases which:

• introduce, or appear to introduce, a new principle or a new rule
• materially modify an existing principle or rule.
• settle, or materially tend to settle, a question upon which the law is doubtful
• for any reason are peculiarly instructive.' (ICLR)

Judgments that interpret new statutes or interpret statutes newly are also often reported. Judges can recommend decisions for reporting, but this decision is generally made by the editors of the various law report series. This means that cases of specialist interest may be overlooked, whilst cases that add nothing new but give an impression of broad coverage may be included.
Unreported judgments

Unreported judgments can be read in court transcripts. Transcripts become available very quickly and are posted on court websites and on www.bailii.org without catchwords or headnotes or 'cases cited' or other such indexing-type information. Among the legal databses, Casetrack, Lawtel and Lexis post transcripts fairly quickly, with some indexing information. Permanent reference copies of unreported judgments are sometimes available from a limited number of courts and are deposited in the court libraries.
Since about 2001, judgments in transcript form have been cited by the neutral citation. Unreported judgments before 2001 are cited by court and date of judgment.

Unreported judgments sometimes become authorities, however they must be used with caution. In the Supreme Court (previously House of Lords), if counsel wish to cite an unreported judgment, they must seek prior leave which will only be granted upon the assurance that it contains an authorative statement of a relevant principle of law not to be found in a reported case (House of Lords Practice Directions and Standing Orders. Jan 1992)

[middenmess]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Question though if these threads are so excellant then why are people getting sued?

People are being sued because their creditors allege that they are owed money--nothing to do with free advice or information available on this and dozens or other free forums on the internet on in any number of publications.

Free advice should be treated as such whether garnered from a forum or from a chat to the guy next door.

The only advice that anyone should act on is that paid for and received by a professional legal advisor like a solicitor or a barrister.

Internet Forums are an excellant medium to discuss your problems but are only an online version of your local pub.

The question to ask yourself is would you go to court after chatting to a complete stranger down the pub?

[militantconsumer]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

People are being sued because their creditors allege that they are owed money--nothing to do with free advice or information available on this and dozens or other free forums on the internet on in any number of publications.

Err... no. If it wasn't for forums like this one and others then most people would assume they had no right to challenge their creditors and would just keep paying. We are an example of somebody being sued because we listened to free advice or information on forums.

Free advice should be treated as such whether garnered from a forum or from a chat to the guy next door.

The only advice that anyone should act on is that paid for and received by a professional legal advisor like a solicitor or a barrister.

Internet Forums are an excellant medium to discuss your problems but are only an online version of your local pub.

The question to ask yourself is would you go to court after chatting to a complete stranger down the pub?

The local pub is full of people I know and I don't want them all to know about my finances. These forums are anonymous.

Not everybody can afford to pay a solicitor or barrister and they are desperate for the advice given on sites such as CAG, MSE and this one.

My local pub is not full of people experience in consumer credit issues.

What is the point of this forum and others if it is not for people to get advice without having to pay a solicitor and a barrister?

Obviously we take responsibility for our own decisions such as deciding to stop paying a creditor. However, when I have offered advice to other posters I have also felt responsibility for the consequences and tried to follow up for months afterwards to see how their cases are going.

It is no good offering people advice and then, if it turns out to be wrong, saying they shouldn't have listened to it in the first place!

[Angry Cat]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

No doubt, pt will provide us all with a copy the Judgement.

[Guest]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

No doubt, pt will provide us all with a copy the Judgement.

Shall we wait AC
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Hi
Yes IMO A good thread is one that gathers number of educated opinions from different sources , discusses them gathers more information then comes to a collective decision.
This is the strength of forums like these.
A bad thread is one that takes one person at his or her word , does not challenge or question , then proceeds without really having understood or explored the issues.
Peter

[Angry Cat]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Peter, there is no need for sarcasm!

Personally speaking, I was somewhat dismayed to learn of the Judgement, via a letter that was sent to another member by Egg.

IMO, it is of great importance that, members read the Judgement in its entirety for themselves and from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

[Guest]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

sarcastic moi.

surely not

Seriously though yes absolutely. Handed down on the 9th though.

There must come a time when we start thinking about getting a copy from another source, a lot of people out there depending on this.

Petr

[lovethebanks]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

AC

It gets worse...read this appeal in Brandon

Legal Beagles Consumer Forum

Consumer credit legislation was brought in to protect consumers and try and prevent creditors from carrying on as they pleased. Creditors however often decided to do as they liked anyway and the judges are just giving it the rubber stamp.

[Amethyst]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Case No: 9CC00161/MC684
is that the right case number for Slater v Egg ?

[righty]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

No wonder you are bitter Paul. I was able to provide plenty of help on the Northern Ireland Court system, knowledge which was sadly lacking on GAG. It's their loss if the want to sell their souls for 20 pieces of silver. I mote Rory doesn't post his insight into Scottish Law any more either.

In fairness to the members of GAG I did get plenty of good advice from the members but sadly the Mods/Owners need to realise what side their bread is buttered on. Andy B and Jimmy C are true FAT cats in every sense of the

word.

Great ODC perhaps you can provide a little insight to what a civil recovery victim can or should do if accused of shoplifting by the Civil Recovery threat monkeys

PS be careful we know for a fact they read this forum so PM me if you wish

[Luminol]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Sorry to butt in, just found this thread, just want to say hello to PT, you helped me in the past a great deal, so its good to see you over here.

Best Wishes Lumi x

[Angry Cat]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Case No: 9CC00161/MC684
is that the right case number for Slater v Egg ?

All enquies have to go through Wrexham. However, the court is now closed until after the Bank Holiday:
http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/H...E70231CCA5F7AF

[righty]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Consumer credit legislation was brought in to protect consumers and try and prevent creditors from carrying on as they pleased. Creditors however often decided to do as they liked anyway and the judges are just giving it the rubber stamp.

Methinks that in order to get some of the lower orders of the judiciary to behave we are going to have to go down the political lobbying route & Vince Cable might be a good start.

Just think of it as a way of punishing the money lenders (as he wants to do) in such a way it gives the coalition government political cover "its not us gov its the law init":tinysmile_grin_t:

[pt2537]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

im quite surprised Egg are referring to it already as we only received the approved judgment ourselves today

I am obviously still going back over the case and in talks with the insurers etc,

I will address the questions shortly and will write a summary of the case etc.

[Amethyst]

Re: yup Pt2537 is here now too

Well, worth a shot on Tuesday then AC ? Otherwise I expect Egg have copies they'd be more than happy to publicise on these sites.