Indigo Cardiff Nurses Case: Permission to Appeal Refused

bargepole

HeatonGuy wrote: »

So I've done a little investigation here.

District Judge Claire Coates, the judge who both heard the initial hearing in Indigo v Dadswell, and the judge that decided to join 80 cases and reserve the matter to herself...

Previously worked for Glamorgan Law, and was involved in a number of property cases involving an NHS Trust.



Is this something that needs examining at a higher, or more importantly, a Criminal, level?

Still clutching at straws, Carol?

HeatonGuy

bargepole wrote: »

However it is disingenuous to say that Mr W was just 'wheeled in' on the day, as the transcript shows, he was emailing the Claimant's solicitors with threatening messages prior to the hearing, some of them utterly ridiculous, and not instructed by the Defendants. And nowhere in any of the documents which I produced, is there any mention of an argument based on the Law of Property Act 1925, which Mr W raised to the annoyance of the Judge.

I see that chain of authority WAS in the skeleton and defence though - was Wilkie simple raising Law of Property Act matters in that context, the same argument he has used with considerable success against MIL according to reports by the Prankster.

If so, then the Judge ought not to have been either confused or annoyed by a Defendant asking a Claimant to put their claim to Strict Proof - is that not what we do to the Parking Companies every day of the week here, lay rep or no.

Out of interest, how much input did you have during the trial - were Beavis and Wilkie talking to you as you were the source of the Defence and Skeleton? Did you attend the trial?

bargepole

HeatonGuy wrote: »

I see that chain of authority WAS in the skeleton and defence though - was Wilkie simple raising Law of Property Act matters in that context, the same argument he has used with considerable success against MIL according to reports by the Prankster.

If so, then the Judge ought not to have been either confused or annoyed by a Defendant asking a Claimant to put their claim to Strict Proof - is that not what we do to the Parking Companies every day of the week here, lay rep or no.

Out of interest, how much input did you have during the trial - were Beavis and Wilkie talking to you as you were the source of the Defence and Skeleton? Did you attend the trial?

Carol, you know perfectly well that I didn't.

And the Law of Property Act applies in MIL cases, because MIL claim to have been assigned the debt. No such assignment was pleaded in this case, so that argument is completely irrelevant, as the Judge recognised.

The verbal reports I received suggested that the case was heading for a car crash. The transcripts show that it was much worse than that, it was a major motorway pile-up. It may have been lost anyway, but Mr W's antics in trying, and failing, to be the cleverest person in Cardiff certainly seems to have had a bearing on the size of the unreasonable costs order.

HeatonGuy

1) I'm not Carol. I don't know who Carol is, but it appears that Coupon-Mad is not the only person with a bee in their bonnet about Wilkie's work.

2) If you weren't there, how do you know there was a car crash. All you seem to have is the transcripts of Judgment, and not the whole hearing.

3) Since I wasn't there, I was trying to see if your comments were from a position of knowledge. Since they are not, I'll start disregarding them too.

Having watched Wilkie, and others, from afar for some time, I'm pretty sure that he and Davd Carrod are the best two Lay Reps in the country, and I cannot believe either of them would make comments of the ilk described by the Barrister in the costs discussions - it is obvious that this was a concerted smear campaign, to the reasonable man.

It appears that you and Coupon-Mad are also pursuing this, for your own reasons.

However, and to be as even-handed as possible, I am also concerned that Wilkie has made no comment about this matter, and wonder why not?

bargepole

Amazing that such a recent 'newbie' to this forum, has such a detailed knowledge of events. If you are not Carol, you must be John Wilkie.

I put up the transcripts, and subsequently the Circuit Judge's reasons for refusing permission to appeal, so that forum members, many of whom contributed to the fighting fund, could see what happened, and form their own view.

Some of the allegations in the transcript may or may not be true; what is true is that they were said in open court, and are in the verbatim transcription.

It is also undeniable that the emails sent to WH, as described by Ryan Hocking, were sent, and certainly did nothing to assist the Defendants' case.

HeatonGuy

bargepole wrote: »

Amazing that such a recent 'newbie' to this forum, has such a detailed knowledge of events. If you are not Carol, you must be John Wilkie.

No, wrong again. I am categorically not John Wilkie, though I would buy the man a beer.

I put up the transcripts, and subsequently the Circuit Judge's reasons for refusing permission to appeal, so that forum members, many of whom contributed to the fighting fund, could see what happened, and form their own view.

Some of the allegations in the transcript may or may not be true; what is true is that they were said in open court, and are in the verbatim transcription.

It is also undeniable that the emails sent to WH, as described by Ryan Hocking, were sent, and certainly did nothing to assist the Defendants' case.

Do you have the details of email that WH may have sent TO Wilkie?

bargepole

HeatonGuy wrote: »

No, wrong again. I am categorically not John Wilkie, though I would buy the man a beer.

Do you have the details of email that WH may have sent TO Wilkie?

No, I don't, but I'm sure that you who are 'categorically not John Wilkie' (yeah, right) can enlighten us all by posting copies up on here.

HeatonGuy

Unfortunately, I don't have access to his email. So no, I can't do that.

I have no doubt, however, that WH will only have produced emails that help their case, and failed entirely in their duty to the court to provide the entire chain of emails, which I also have no doubt will have shown unreasonable conduct by their solicitors.

Marktheshark

The angle of the contract breaking EU consumer regulations must be the lifeline, a new challenge all the way to the EU courts.

Ryandavis1959

Marktheshark wrote: »

The angle of the contract breaking EU consumer regulations must be the lifeline, a new challenge all the way to the EU courts.

Hasn’t Bargepole already confirmed that there is no further right to appeal, including to any European court?