Re: Costs question

On Feb 6, 8:57 am, "Andrew McGee" <amh...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'll jujst comment on a few of your replies, if I may.


The findings in that litigation would be EVIDENCE, but would not be
essential elements of the cause of action.

Your pleading needs to say that on [dates] [defendant] harrassed you in the
following ways.

That is the essence of your cause of action, and P of C in those terms
(obviously with more detail, as appropriate) should be sufficient.


Yes I understand. As it is the defendants will deny. If I have the
findings of fact from the other litigation then (if they are in my
favour) I can rely on issue estoppel to prevent them from contesting
those findings of fact. So sure I accept I should have to fully
particularise but the long and short of it is that I don't want to
press the claim without being sure the extant litigation goes my way
(heres where the limitation period rears its head). I'm not on the
cusp of limitation expiry but I am abroad and will continue to be out
of the country right through limitation does expiry (I also mentioned
that in the information given in the original claim).... I thought I
was being prudent by issuing before I left the country.



4. I doubt the wisdom of asking for a stay before the P o fC have even
been
served. It might, possibly, and depending on the detailed facts, have
been
possible to get a stay by serving proper P of C, waiting for the Defence
and then going to the first CMC and asking for the stay.

Does my previous answer now explain this.

Well, yes, but, for the reasons given above, I still yhink you were mistaken
in your approach.



5. One possible reason for the Master's view that the application for a
stay
was misconceived is that it is very difficult for the court to see
whether a
stay should be granted if it does not have before it even an elementary
Pof
C.

I gave 24 paragraphs of information relating to the history of the
incident, what I wanted to claim for and how it was contigent on the
extant litigation. The master assumed that as the PofC and said they
weren't compliant but they were never meant to be the PofC, they were
meant to be the background to the request for the stay.

Well, if he did,he did. It was an odd thing for him to do.


It was complicated. He couldn't be assed to read it properly or until
the end. I tried to simplify it as best I could.
Now you could still say I'm to blame, but make no mistake I
highlighted the paragraphs cited in the reply to the Todal when I made
the application. On a 2nd reading he couldn't possibly be confused as
to what exactly I was after.



7. Given that the strike out was made without a hearing, you have/had an
automatic right to ask for it to be reconsidered at a hearing. You could
still apply, though you will need to do so promptly. I agree that this is
an
application for relief from sanctions (CPR 3.9). At the very least you
will
have to put a proper P of C before the court in good time for the hearing
of
that application.

I now have to go to the CofA to do this. The master tossed my
application for reconsideration without a hearing.

Timescales???

So far I am ok. I have about another week, but it is difficult lodging
bundles when you are an LIP and out of the country.

CPR 3.3 provides, so far a spresently relevant

4) The court may make an order of its own initiative, without hearing the
parties or giving them an opportunity to make representations.
(5) Where the court has made an order under paragraph (4)-
(a) a party affected by the order may apply to have it set aside GL, varied
or stayed GL; and
(b) the order must contain a statement of the right to make such an
application
(6) An application under paragraph (5)(a) must be made-
(a) within such period as may be specified by the court; or
(b) if the court does not specify a period, not more than 7 days after the
date on which the order was served on the party making the application.

If you did not apply within the seven days,then again this would be a case
for seeking relief from sanctions. But I cannot see that it was proper not
to hear you on the request for reconsideration. Are you still in time for a
further appeal?


Yes I am.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Frivolity and the Law
    ... heading 'frivolous litigation': ... litigant's attorney) who presents any pleading, written motion or other ... paper to the court is required, under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil ...
    (rec.games.chess.politics)
  • Re: OT - WARNING POLITICAL & AW (Human)
    ... countries would be justified in ignoring World Court findings regarding ... I thought we fought a civil war to determine whether individual states ... Actually, according to our Constitution, state laws *should* supersede ...
    (rec.pets.cats.anecdotes)
  • Re: OT - WARNING POLITICAL & AW (Human)
    ... countries would be justified in ignoring World Court findings regarding ... Actually, according to our Constitution, state laws *should* supersede ... But the War of Northern ...
    (rec.pets.cats.anecdotes)
  • Re: New ARA safety "advice"
    ... the other hand litigation can be an effective way to get things done. ... The system works to minimise cases actually getting into court. ... settlement, as even if they win the case and are awarded damages, they risk ... having to pay the costs for both sides. ...
    (rec.sport.rowing)
  • Re: OT - WARNING POLITICAL & AW (Human)
    ... countries would be justified in ignoring World Court findings regarding ... extra-territorial legislative bodies is to make those same bodies unable ... he was entitled to speak with a Mexican consular officer. ...
    (rec.pets.cats.anecdotes)
Loading