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

Reply to defence

Reply to defence

Postby Earl » Sun May 07, 2017 3:47 pm

The defence states "the claimant is put to strict prof in this regard."

Can I say the same back.

Also the defendant claims that I added myself to his joint account - is this possible without his signature and presence at the bank
that I redirected his mail - is that possible
and that I "created a will on my behalf which she proceeded to sign herself, in my name, committing the act of fraud." I think that's not possible unless two people who
sign the will as witnesses are prepared to lie.

Father daughter breakdown.
Earl
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 9:24 am

Re: Reply to defence

Postby 3.14 » Sun May 07, 2017 4:23 pm

Of course, it's possible to do it. But if you didn't do it, what possible proof does the other party have?
Hide in the noise. #hackerwisdom
User avatar
3.14
 
Posts: 2040
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:58 pm

Re: Reply to defence

Postby diy » Mon May 08, 2017 9:50 am

No you can't - you are the one claiming so you must prove your case. It is a standard phrase that means provide all the necessary evidence to prove your case including your damages.

for example:

you crash your car in to mine and I sue you for £2,500 in damages. You put me to strict proof so I must prove you are responsible for the damages and I must prove I have incurred the loss - e.g. receipts/3 estimates for the work etc
My suggestions are not legal advice
User avatar
diy
 
Posts: 2327
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

Re: Reply to defence

Postby Earl » Tue May 09, 2017 7:25 am

Thank you for the replies, but I still don't get it.

I can be accused of all manner of deceitful cunning illegal actions and the defence does not have to prove what it claims?
This is not about a car and damages, it is about running a property portfolio, with a sizeable income. I was running my 85 year old dads business out of the goodness of my heart, had problems with him because of his age. Can't call it incapacity because although mentally failing not that far gone.
Anyway chucked me out, disinherited me and claims the above in his defence...........and he doesn't have to prove it!
Earl
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 9:24 am

Re: Reply to defence

Postby atticus » Tue May 09, 2017 7:58 am

Your case, your burden of proof. Proving your case may involve disproving the defence.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 18643
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Reply to defence

Postby diy » Tue May 09, 2017 8:06 am

You say you did it out of the kindness of your heart and now you don't have to do it any more, so everyone is a winner? Clearly you had more expectations and you need to evidence that you were to some degree either a partner in his business establishing that he'd gifted or promised some aspects of it to you or that you were working with his blessing and therefore it should not be for free.

Unless you can show that he'd promised or agreed some sort of share, then its going to be hard to argue any right to his investments.
My suggestions are not legal advice
User avatar
diy
 
Posts: 2327
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

Re: Reply to defence

Postby atticus » Tue May 09, 2017 8:11 am

I thought we'd been through estoppels, Earl.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 18643
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W


Return to Litigation Practice

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest