DN arguments are dead (not)

[mystery1]

Re: DN arguments are dead (not)

This is an intersting point. However the CPR Part 6 Rule 6.26 does give examples and details for the courts guidance which actually coincide with the interpretation acts 2 'business days' for 1st class post. 6A 10.1 even gives a nice example to show the judge :tinysmile_grin_t:

Its neither here nor there in my case, as whether 1st or 2nd class post was utilised, the DN only gives 12 or 10 days respectivley (Not 14 as required). As the document was posted on a Thursday, therefore deemed service is a Monday or Wednesday.

Then you can show the notice is bad. Interpretation act etc is only about showing the date served in order to make the notice bad.

Harrison v Link is binding on your judge. Tell him so. Make him understand. The notice is bad.

If you have time on your side then perhaps a notice to admit would be very useful.

M1

[AnonymousUser1978]

Re: DN arguments are dead (not)

Hi Mystery, Unfortunatley time is not on my side. I'm in this afternoon, so i hope the DJ is in a good mood. However i am armed with Harrison v Link and Woodchester v Swayne both cases have some gems. I have a method in mind of going through the DN and case law cases and i'm going to conclude by trying to convince the DJ that the DN is a statutory precursor to court action. Also i'm planning on telling the court 'nicely' that the Act does not give the court any discretion where a DN is concerned. Only where a faulty agreement is concerned (S127).

I'll post the outcome this afternoon when all is over.

[charitynjw]

Re: DN arguments are dead (not)

ray:

[AnonymousUser1978]

Re: DN arguments are dead (not)

LOL 'Sharpening my tools of war'!

[AnonymousUser1978]

Re: DN arguments are dead (not)

As a last ditch atempt to add another arrow to my bow, do i have any argument where the undated agreement is concerned? Its literally not dated 'anywhere' not even in the signature box....