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

Failure to file statement of costs before allocation to trac

Re: Failure to file statement of costs before allocation to

Postby Lurker » Sun Feb 15, 2015 11:56 am

Denning wrote:
Lurker wrote:under the principles of English and Welsh law it's better that a dozen guilty Defendants go free than one innocent Defendant be wrongly punished by the state.

Such type of injustice should no longer be acceptable in the 21st century. There must be modernisation in the judiciary to strive towards achieving zero tolerance for error.


Wait, wait, bear with me... you actually disagree with Blackstone's Formulation?

I mean, I appreciate that "striving towards" doesn't preclude the impossibility of ever achieving (I've read "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" too), but are you seriously suggesting that courts should not err on the side of innocence?
Lurker
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2015 8:10 pm

Re: Failure to file statement of costs before allocation to

Postby atticus » Sun Feb 15, 2015 2:08 pm

What is this "rule of fundamental corruption" you keep spouting on about, Knee-jerk?
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 18875
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Failure to file statement of costs before allocation to

Postby Denning » Sun Feb 15, 2015 6:11 pm

Lurker wrote:
Denning wrote:
Lurker wrote:under the principles of English and Welsh law it's better that a dozen guilty Defendants go free than one innocent Defendant be wrongly punished by the state.

Such type of injustice should no longer be acceptable in the 21st century. There must be modernisation in the judiciary to strive towards achieving zero tolerance for error.


Wait, wait, bear with me... you actually disagree with Blackstone's Formulation?

I mean, I appreciate that "striving towards" doesn't preclude the impossibility of ever achieving (I've read "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" too), but are you seriously suggesting that courts should not err on the side of innocence?

The Blackstone's Formulation is simply to maintain the status quo. By way of two some examples:
1. If a staff is dismissed - the court should maintain the status quo by quashing the dismissal.
2. If a tenant's home is repossessed - the court should maintain the status quo by quashing the repossession order.

atticus wrote:What is this "rule of fundamental corruption" you keep spouting on about, Knee-jerk?

Any grey area of the rules or law overwhelmingly used by lawyers or judges to exploit and oppress the unsuspecting litigants.
Denning
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Failure to file statement of costs before allocation to

Postby Lurker » Sun Feb 15, 2015 6:25 pm

Denning wrote:The Blackstone's Formulation is simply to maintain the status quo. By way of two some examples:
1. If a staff is dismissed - the court should maintain the status quo by quashing the dismissal.
2. If a tenant's home is repossessed - the court should maintain the status quo by quashing the repossession order.

No. Just... no. That's nonsense.
Lurker
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2015 8:10 pm

Re: Failure to file statement of costs before allocation to

Postby atticus » Sun Feb 15, 2015 6:28 pm

Denners, all aspects of your last post are complete garbage.
Last edited by atticus on Sun Feb 22, 2015 8:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: keep thingy happy
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 18875
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Failure to file statement of costs before allocation to

Postby Denning » Mon Feb 16, 2015 5:32 am

Lurker wrote:
Denning wrote:The Blackstone's Formulation is simply to maintain the status quo. By way of two some examples:
1. If a staff is dismissed - the court should maintain the status quo by quashing the dismissal.
2. If a tenant's home is repossessed - the court should maintain the status quo by quashing the repossession order.

No. Just... no. That's nonsense.

Brett MR in Muster v Lamb (1883) 11 QBD 588
To my mind it is illogical to argue that the protection of privilege ought not to exist for a counsel, who deliberately and maliciously slanders another person. The reason of the rule is, that a counsel, who is not malicious and who is acting bona fide, may not be in danger of having actions brought against him. If the rule of law were otherwise, the most innocent of counsel might be unrighteously harassed with suits, and therefore it is better to make the rule of law so large that an innocent counsel shall never be troubled, although by making it so large counsel are included who have been guilty of malice and misconduct.’

Logic appeared not to be your good point because Blackstone's Formulation which was applied in Munster v Lamb cannot be read in the literal sense. Law students are usually told about the Blackstone's Formulation and many of them swallowed it hook, line and sinker without really understanding the logical interpretation of it in the 21st Century.

Do you mind to provide a meaningful explanation as to the application of Blackstone' Formulation in the OP's case or to the two examples I provided in which a staff was dismissed (Employment matters) and tenant's home repossessed (Housing matters) since you were overtly negative in your response that it does not relate to maintaining the status quo in its simplest form?
Denning
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:41 am

Previous

Return to Costs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests