Arrow v Frost 2013

[Amethyst]

Oh, and Andy / PT - what is Frost ? (and don't post me a picture of that darn singing snowman)

[ThinkOutsideTheBox]

Re: Lowell/Lloyds TSB/BW Legal

Oh, and Andy / PT - what is Frost ? (and don't post me a picture of that darn singing snowman)

Arrow Global v Frost

Have got a copy of the judgement somewhere, 1 sec.

[ThinkOutsideTheBox]

Re: Lowell/Lloyds TSB/BW Legal

There you go, attached.

[Amethyst]

Re: Lowell/Lloyds TSB/BW Legal

Lovely thankyou I've probably read it but there's just soooooooooo many.

[Amethyst]

Re: Lowell/Lloyds TSB/BW Legal

Ouch. I'll shift these posts to another thread. xxx

This bit is the kind of thing I was talking about in another thread regarding detriment caused to consumer who 'fell under the spell' of CMC's on UE issues ( http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...ment+companies )

Other thread on Frost Judgment is http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...l-County-Court

[Guest]

Re: Arrow v Frost 2013

Yes it is section 16.3 of the judgement that is the worry.

[mystery1]

Re: Arrow v Frost 2013

Yes it is section 16.3 of the judgement that is the worry.

Not really, it's just how the rules and balance of probability are supposed to work. Indeed Paul has said over many posts on a few sites that it is this way and referred to HFO v Patel which i've never seen a copy of, which itself was referred to in Wegmuller. http://paulatwatsonssolicitors.wordp...al-limited-vs/

M1

[Guest]

Re: Arrow v Frost 2013

Not really, it's just how the rules and balance of probability are supposed to work. Indeed Paul has said over many posts on a few sites that it is this way and referred to HFO v Patel which i've never seen a copy of, which itself was referred to in Wegmuller. http://paulatwatsonssolicitors.wordp...al-limited-vs/

M1

Yes really, this has been referred to my me since it was first mentioned in Carey and is a constant problem for people who rely on none production of agreements. In that the court can enforce if there is no other assertion that the agreement was none compliant in some other way. It is a worry if the poster is depending on this as reason for the case being stricken out surely?

Indecently this also raises the default notice issue in that the Brandon decision did not decide the issuance of a premature termination would render the DN defective, as shown here it can still be seen as deminimiss. Another point raised be me on many forums :

[mystery1]

Re: Arrow v Frost 2013

Well a poster shouldn't be relying on non production in that manner. The civil courts use balance of probability not absolute certainty. The court decides on the evidence before it. If a bank lends money then there will be a trail. If you go with the attitude that you didn't borrow then it's an easy obstacle to overcome evidentially. If you say the terms weren't there when i signed and i know that because it was a magazine flyer or whatever and your evidence on the whole is credible then they have a problem. Anybody who has said otherwise is wrong.

CMC's failed for this exact reason. People don't seem to get this because it doesn't help them. It's not only the way it is but it's logically sound too.

M1

[Guest]

Re: Arrow v Frost 2013

Well a poster shouldn't be relying on non production in that manner. The civil courts use balance of probability not absolute certainty. The court decides on the evidence before it. If a bank lends money then there will be a trail. If you go with the attitude that you didn't borrow then it's an easy obstacle to overcome evidentially. If you say the terms weren't there when i signed and i know that because it was a magazine flyer or whatever and your evidence on the whole is credible then they have a problem. Anybody who has said otherwise is wrong.

CMC's failed for this exact reason. People don't seem to get this because it doesn't help them. It's not only the way it is but it's logically sound too.

M1

Yes I fully understand the proof required in civil law. The problem is that when you use CPR and attempt to get a case struck out for none production of an agreement, it is within the power of the court to decide that the requested document is not essential to the judgment being made. As various judges have said, they cannot order the production of documents which do not exist, and it seems that they do not have to exist in order to obtain a judgment.

[mystery1]

Re: Arrow v Frost 2013

Yes I fully understand the proof required in civil law. The problem is that when you use CPR and attempt to get a case struck out for none production of an agreement, it is within the power of the court to decide that the requested document is not essential to the judgment being made. As various judges have said, they cannot order the production of documents which do not exist, and it seems that they do not have to exist in order to obtain a judgment.

How do you work that out ? A hearing on disclosure is not a hearing of evidence of the case. The judge will not know whether the documents are required to help the claimant since they are not making their case or asking for disclosure.

The claimant would need to think long and hard about saying the document does not exist in either it's original form or in a reconstructed form particularly if s77-79 was in play.

M1

[Guest]

Re: Arrow v Frost 2013

How do you work that out ? A hearing on disclosure is not a hearing of evidence of the case. The judge will not know whether the documents are required to help the claimant since they are not making their case or asking for disclosure.

The claimant would need to think long and hard about saying the document does not exist in either it's original form or in a reconstructed form particularly if s77-79 was in play.

M1

Section 77 to 79 does not depend on the existence of the original document, a reconstruction based on the information available at the time will suffice, and fulfill requirements of the copy regulations.

I think your other comment refer to another thread.

[Guest]

Re: Arrow v Frost 2013

How do you work that out ? A hearing on disclosure is not a hearing of evidence of the case. The judge will not know whether the documents are required to help the claimant since they are not making their case or asking for disclosure.

The claimant would need to think long and hard about saying the document does not exist in either it's original form or in a reconstructed form particularly if s77-79 was in play.

M1

Oh we are in the lampost.

Interested in this, so you are saying that a court can make a decision on the necessity of disclosure(and possibly strike out a case) without have any regard to the over-riding interest of the case in question ?

So in theory i could use CPR to halt any case just by requesting document which the other side could not posses, even if they were nothing to do with the case in question.

[mystery1]

Re: Arrow v Frost 2013

Section 77 to 79 does not depend on the existence of the original document, a reconstruction based on the information available at the time will suffice, and fulfill requirements of the copy regulations.

Correct but if, as is often the case, this is still outstanding then to say they don't have "the agreement" as mentioned in the pocs weakens their position substantially if the recon is questioned. In fact it may open the door to a summary judgement application by the defendant as s77-79 are clear that no enforcement is allowed without compliance and they'd just have said we don't have anything we'd call "the agreement"


It is not a defence to an application to say that "we don't need the agreement to win our case". they have mentioned it so the defendant is entitled to ask to inspect it. It matters not one jot whether it is needed by the claimant to make their case or not.

M1

[Amethyst]

Re: Arrow v Frost 2013

Yep, just my fault taking the original thread off topic, then realised we haven't really got a general discussion area that isn't lampost and I didn't want to put it in VIP.

Documents requested need to be relevant and necessary for the case, and under 31.14 mentioned in the statement of case (as thats what they disclosed as what they rely on to bring the claim) The problem at the moment is that claims are being bought, often five/six years after last contact, with very little detail on what the debt is (if you have a number of debts or old accounts with a company then it is tough to work out whether this is actually a debt owed, whether the amounts claimed are correct, and of course whether it might be statute barred) So all the CPR is doing is forcing the claimants to check the debt is valid and provide enough information to make an informed decision whether to defend due to a dispute, or to make a full or partial admission and offer to pay.

'an account with Lloyds' could be an overdraft, loan, credit card, insurance debt etc, if you don't know which it is how can you defend or admit it?

The claimants aren't complying with reasonable requests for information they should have had before making a claim against someone. They don't even have the documents that the claim is based on and just rely on a list of names and amounts given to them by the lender. It is really basic CPR and long term the aim is that claimants will have to have the documents evidencing the debt before bringing a claim, else they are just wasting their court fee.