Request for popla refused despite quoting legislation, what to do now?

nicechap

Well done. Your success has made my day.

Gin_and_Milk

nicechap wrote: »

Well done. Your success has made my day.

Thanks. It's made mine too!

Redx

Gin_and_Milk wrote: »

I went to the first post as was suggested and it allowed me to edit the title of that under advanced edit, but not the actual title of the thread. I can't find anything that allows me to do that.

I just checked one of my threads and got the same result

maybe they removed the option to alter the thread title ?

anyway, I could not find it either , the option that is allowed alters the post title (which used to match the thread title)

you could pm crabman and ask for it to be changed , with a weblink and a new title , he should be able to do so as a board guide and could also do it in the past too

devonlad

congrats on your success, I hope your hubby is relaxed now

Umkomaas

From where I am, this looks a lekker result. Well done.

Gin_and_Milk

Umkomaas wrote: »

From where I am, this looks a lekker result. Well done.

What's a lekker result?

safarmuk

Gin & Milk ... the Prankster has made you famous ...

Gin_and_Milk

safarmuk wrote: »

Gin & Milk ... the Prankster has made you famous ...

I got an email from them this morning - he's fast isn't he?!

There's a few mistakes like putting 'we' 'me' 'I' etc, but the facts are there and that's me being downright picky :rotfl:

I read quite a few of his blog posts before which gave me a real boost, so hopefully it will help others too.

freester

Been following this one from the beginning. Great win.

Gin_and_Milk

Someone left a comment on the Pranksters blog referring to the test the judge applied when considering adjournment. There are three stages (or limbs as she called them. I know many of you will be aware of it, but it might come in handy for someone. It's called the Denton Principles of Relief from Sanctions.

Stage one: The Court should “identify and assess the seriousness of the failure to comply with any rule, practice direction or court order which engages rule 3.9(1)”;

In our case the judge felt it was serious as GS had deliberately chosen not to comply by not submitting a WS, therefore knowingly putting us at a considerable disadvantage.

Stage two: The Court should consider why the default occurred;

The judge stated that she believed the default had occurred because GS 'hadn't bothered to send anything'.

Stage three: The Court should “evaluate all the circumstances of the case, so as to enable [the court] to deal justly with the application including [factors (a) and (b)]”.

The judge felt that GS had already wasted enough of the court's time and that there was no justification for their actions. They had failed the test right from the first stage.

What I forgot to mention about costs, was that the judge asked me if I'd emailed the court and either GS or MB (can't remember which) 24 hours before. Because I hadn't, this was why she couldn't award costs for things like postage, printing etc. She did say she could award costs for parking and mileage and I think the reason she rounded it up to a tenner was because, had she been able to do so, she would have awarded us a lot more. But, as you all know, I'm just glad it's over!