Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

court staff v preacher

Judicial review, activities of government, local and national etc.

Re: court staff v preacher

Postby atticus » Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:01 pm

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content ... Person.pdf - see page 37 onwards and particularly paragraphs 8.10 onwards on page 41.
atticus - a very stable genius
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20110
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: court staff v preacher

Postby preacherman » Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:38 pm

thanks, much appreciated, will read it. I would like to ask two specific questions, as I am now confused!

"and upon the court considering its over riding objective that matters should be dealt with proportionally".

I am assuming it means, that a 'particulars of claim' should be that, without going into great detail at an early stage?

what exactly does that mean? could it mean, for example, that if a Defence is not served in time, and an acknowledgment is not served in time, as discussed here (cpr 10.2) then the court will consider if it matters as proportionally the claim is only for a small amount so the rules don`t really matter.

the other question will follow :lol:
User avatar
preacherman
 
Posts: 1005
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:09 pm

Re: court staff v preacher

Postby atticus » Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:56 pm

Just read it. Then read it again. And again. Until you understand it.
atticus - a very stable genius
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20110
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: court staff v preacher

Postby preacherman » Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:34 pm

Its not very specific though!

proportionally
prəˈpɔːʃ(ə)nəli/Submit
adverb
in a way that corresponds in size or amount to something else.

matter
ˈmatə/Submit
noun
plural noun: matters
1.
physical substance in general, as distinct from mind and spirit; (in physics) that which occupies space and possesses rest mass, especially as distinct from energy.
"the structure and properties of matter"
2.
a subject or situation under consideration.
"a great deal of work was done on this matter"
User avatar
preacherman
 
Posts: 1005
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:09 pm

Re: court staff v preacher

Postby preacherman » Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:32 pm

I don`t suppose you have access to lawtel? cant find this report anywhere in my library (google!)



http://www.civillitigationbrief.com/201 ... rved-late/
User avatar
preacherman
 
Posts: 1005
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:09 pm

Re: court staff v preacher

Postby preacherman » Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:37 pm

atticus wrote:Just read it. Then read it again. And again. Until you understand it.


still reading! eyes bit strained now :lol:

From 1 April 2013 there was also an amendment to the "overriding objective", to which the court must seek to give effect whenever it exercises any powers, or interprets any rule, under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). The amended version provides that the overriding objective is to enable the court to deal with cases justly "and at proportionate cost".

The revised test is relevant not only when costs are assessed, but at all stages of the action, due to the reference in the overriding objective to the requirement to deal with cases "at proportionate cost".

"and upon the court considering its over riding objective that matters should be dealt with proportionally".

if the judge considered the claim, when all requirements for default judgement were met, then by considering the merits of the particluars was the court not putting extra burden on the court, and failing by not making a party follow the rules?enforcing compliance with rules, practice directions and orders.
User avatar
preacherman
 
Posts: 1005
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:09 pm

Re: court staff v preacher

Postby atticus » Sat Dec 02, 2017 8:37 am

Rambling and confusing statements of case tend to add massively to the cost.
atticus - a very stable genius
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20110
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: court staff v preacher

Postby preacherman » Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:50 am

yes i understand that in context of particulars. In context of default judgement though,or claim as a whole if court had administered cpr correctly the matter would not even be before a judges eyes.

repeating myself I think but defence and,or Acknowledgement both due by 22 Aug.defence filed on 5th September, acknowledgement on 4th sept. Court said acknowledgement was in time which meant defendant had further 14 days to file defence, making sept 5th last day for filling defence!. I have read the CPR Backwards and sideways but it does not give some kind of reverse order extension! thats way out with the fairy, the letter also began, 'can I drive to your attention' (Those false facts)..

(a) where the defendant is served with a claim form which states that particulars of claim are to follow, 14 days after service of the particulars of claim; and
(b) in any other case, 14 days after service of the claim form.(22nd Aug)
User avatar
preacherman
 
Posts: 1005
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:09 pm

Re: court staff v preacher

Postby atticus » Sat Dec 02, 2017 5:23 pm

But you said
preacherman wrote:ps none of this relates to above discussion and default judgments
atticus - a very stable genius
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20110
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: court staff v preacher

Postby preacherman » Sat Dec 02, 2017 10:13 pm

atticus wrote:But you said
preacherman wrote:ps none of this relates to above discussion and default judgments


'upon considering the 'particulars of claim'. that sounds like court read particulars of claim.

I applied for default by request (no charge). It was returned saying defence now filed. I returned it again, saying it was out of time and conditions had been met under cpr for default judgment.

then i received the court ' driving to my attention letter'. made a complaint about that letter, and again returned request for default. claim was transferred to local court. response to complaint said the people i was complaining to were not legally trained! they said you could write to local court as file now there, and ask for matter to be referred to judiciary. Did that, local court said you would need to apply on n244, and also said, an order had been made in the claim maybe wait till you get it.

the request has slipped under the rug. or masons...

I dont think I need to make an n244 application, as I have already made a request for judgment. I would be asking for the same order.. this is from web shows the difference i think.

This is not a case in which default judgment can be obtained by filing a request pursuant to CPR 12.4(1). The claimant has, as required by CPR 12.4(2), made an application pursuant to CPR 23. On such an application, the Court will enter “such judgment as it appears to the court that the claimant is entitled to on his statement of case”: CPR 23.11(1)
User avatar
preacherman
 
Posts: 1005
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:09 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Administrative Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron