Report comment

@john drowssap 23 September 2016 06:30 pm

".....Until you lawyers rise up to expose the shenanigans used to stop people making claims in the common law court of record any plea to uphold the rule of law rings hollow. .."

I mean I had a case at Hammersmith where in some way (I still don't know how), the opposing Barrister sidelined the "proceedings" by complaining about the Application Notice I had filed. The Court knew the content. The other side knew the contents filed (though not paid for) a week before in draft because the Court Staff were pissing about with fees exemption. Then to cap it all, the opposing Barrister then said the N244 was not in the correct format when it had been taken off the web from the Government Web Site (they said not up to date whetherver that meant and required of an N244!!!!

You couldn't make it up. No wonder so many LIP's flip in Court. I am not one, but the overall intention was not to hear the mater to obfuscate and use as much subterfuge as possible to prevent it coming to trial imho.

Compare with Crime Proceedings. Either the Court Clerk or D/DDJ or in the Crown Court Daily Judge will ask for a short Section 9 statement to be filed wit the request for the order at the foot of that statement and all relevant documents to be appended.

Parties are regularly rung and matters adjourned simply if further time is necessary (over applications and appeals in respect of those applications / mentions.

Parties regular simply rock up at Court with documents.

Much simpler ......