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

implications

implications

Postby preacherman » Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:24 am

I have noticed having been involved in some litigation as a litigant in person, that people seem to get offended and say that claim particulars carry implications (other than what is being dealt with) as if that is abnormal or something.

then they wright me a letter, some even have gone to the police, one such statement said to me by a police officer regarding a statement of claim/facts was ; 'your implying a fireman of 19 years is a conspirator to arson' because I mentioned a true statement of fact, i.e at such a such a time so and so, a fireman entered the building off duty..

how does a solicitor deal with these situations? a statement relevant to the claim such as ' I cut the grass at 6 pm as it was now 6 feet long, would explain why the grass was cut at 6 pm, but it could also carry the implication that I am lazy for not having cut the grass sooner, whereas the facts to be dealt with in the claim were what time was the grass cut.

surly its a fact of life, and the English language, that a statement of claim might carry other implications outside of the relevant proceedings.
User avatar
preacherman
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:09 pm

Re: implications

Postby atticus » Sat Feb 10, 2018 10:42 am

Those comments are likely to be specific to your cases and what you say in setting out your claims. Without seeing what you have said, and how other parties have responded, further comment is not possible.

If you are going to make a statement which implies something underhand or a conspiracy (your fireman example), then you should spell it out. A judge will in many cases either make you do so or strike out at least that part of the particulars of claim.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20651
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: implications

Postby preacherman » Sat Feb 10, 2018 11:33 am

but I got arrested for spelling it out! (fireman example). all i did in that example was state a true statement of fact, 'he entered the building looked at fire doors (off duty) then he left'. (a true statement of fact).

currently, i explained why defendants neighbors name was on an invoice as well as the defendant, later in same particulars I explained who another party was that defendant had had rendezvous with at a property I was working on (as she said he was her witness). Defendant is ranting on that I am implying she is getting it on with 2 people! the two statements of fact could imply that but its not relevant to claim.
Last edited by atticus on Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: unnecessary quotation of entire preceding post deleted
User avatar
preacherman
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:09 pm

Re: implications

Postby atticus » Sat Feb 10, 2018 1:22 pm

I can not help you to think through the consequences of what you choose to say.

As to "currently", you might consider stating your intended meaning with precision; and, if it be the case that you intend no other imputation or insinuation, saying so.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20651
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: implications

Postby preacherman » Sat Feb 10, 2018 3:27 pm

thanks, well it was stated with precision, but some people like to play games I suppose, and go off track to avoid the main issues.
Last edited by atticus on Sat Feb 10, 2018 3:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: unnecessary quotation of entire preceding post deleted
User avatar
preacherman
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:09 pm

Re: implications

Postby preacherman » Sat Feb 10, 2018 7:53 pm

do you ever go on to one of these ask a solicitor online to earn yourself an extra few quid?
User avatar
preacherman
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:09 pm


Return to Litigation Practice

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest