Indigo Cardiff Nurses Case: Permission to Appeal Refused

Dr_Crypto

HeatonGuy wrote: »

And that is why the Judge's background is relevant to this matter.

It really isn't. Unless it is a true conflict of interest (R v Sussex Justices ex p McCarthy style) it is totally irrelevant.

There aren't that many law firms of any substance in Cardiff or Wales in general - and fewer still that would be able to act for a NHS body. It is almost inevitable that a decent Welsh lawyer will have come across the NHS before in some capacity.

System

It is almost inevitable that a decent Welsh lawyer will have come across the NHS before in some capacity.

So true given the number of claims against the medical fraternity.

bargepole

logician wrote: »

Yes just reading this thread and the documents demonstrate this is about as "clear as mud" as it gets with accusations not clear or even proven. the lay rep does state that this is "lies" which is recorded on the transcript.

I have read the threads and transcripts regarding the case and also a number of newspaper reports and blogs on Prankster.

I recall a blog by the Parking Prankster that the Claimant tried to get this moved to multi-track. According to "softwaremad" post 124 on this thread, The Claimant's attempted an offer of the claims plus proportion of the full costs of £43k after the first afternoon - what a delightful offer that appeared to be.

It would appear that the Claimant were determined to get "costs" by any means available, fair or foul and chose foul (IMHO)

What I cannot understand is :

a) why weren't these purported emails brought to the attention of the judge prior to the commencement of the trial. Surely Hocking had a duty to the court if there was any doubt regarding the lay rep.
The lay rep could then have made any reasonable explanation regarding what led to those apparent one-sided emails, and left it to the judge and/or his client if the lay rep could still be there.
It is noted on Prankster's blog that there was no objection to the lay rep's right of audience at the Appeal hearing but clearly their failure to get this moved for multi track and therefore full costs must have had an impacted the desire for JW to be implicated. Any reasonable person could possibly interpret that to be the case.

b) Why didn't Hocking bring to the judge's attention immediately the allegation re ZZPS and why were the police not notified?? It seems very contrived and spurious that such an allegation is magically provided at the costs hearing.


c) I am trying to get my head around why the judge agreed that the 7 defence points which she, herself laid out as being the issues to be argued with the consent of both the Claimant and Defendants, that she then agreed with the Claimant that these were suddenly deemed unreasonable to argue after finding judgment at the end of the trial in favour of the Claimant.

The Claimant appear to have made no objections pre-trial that those points could not be explored - it would appear therefore very underhand to claim costs for unreasonable points which had been concurred by all parties to explore

d) I find it more unclear as to why Barry Beavis apparently then concurred with the Claimant that running those arguments were unreasonable. More shocking is that he confirmed he was well out of his depth in the costs hearing and this was milked for all to see by the barrister.

e) it seems the Claimant is complaining of the bulk defences in two of the Defendants and all other Defendants on the Schedules.
According to the transcripts and this thread bargepole supplied the defence for the D1 which the lay rep criticised was representing and this was not a stock or 'bulk defence.

f) Therefore it would seem the main or substantial costs for the Claimant in preparing for trial lies with the two other Defendants and not D1.

g) Additionally 'bargepole' confirms that he also prepared the skeletons for D2 and D3 and not the lay rep. Barry B seems not to have corrected Hocking or the court that paperwork was not prepared by Mr W.

h)There appears to have been a 'group' consensus including 'advice' by bargepole into the running of the case. It is therefore difficult how one controlling person can be determined.

Funny how we've now got another 'newbie' just registered, yet who seems to have a detailed knowledge of the background to this. Could these 'newbies' be connected to a company which is mentioned in the transcript, I wonder?

safarmuk

There are a lot of brand spanking new users popping up on this thread with strong opinions and increasing levels of knowledge of the situation ... yet we still have no answer as to what is up with the pork in the staff canteen? Incredible.

System

yet we still have no answer as to what is up with the pork in the staff canteen?

My lips are sealed but couldn't say the same about the other end.

Wolvesfan1234

bargepole wrote: »

Funny how we've now got another 'newbie' just registered, yet who seems to have a detailed knowledge of the background to this. Could these 'newbies' be connected to a company which is mentioned in the transcript, I wonder?

We all know what's going on here. Don't we Bargepole? Well those in the know do don't they?

We know the people involved with certain companies mentioned, and those in the know, know that other parties in the case mentioned (as well as various parking firms. solicitors etc,) know who they are really dealing with.......

safarmuk

“yet we still have no answer as to what is up with the pork in the staff canteen?”

My lips are sealed but couldn't say the same about the other end.

Understood ... is it possible this fate also befell the poor Lay Rep and that is indeed the reason why he kept standing up and, in the end, had to leave the court room? Perhaps a new shiny user might be along shortly to let us know if this hypothesis is true or not ...

Wolvesfan1234

There is a lot of dirty laundry that will be aired in public in due course

DoaM

Wolvesfan1234 wrote: »

We all know what's going on here. Don't we Bargepole? Well those in the know do don't they?

We know the people involved with certain companies mentioned, and those in the know, know that other parties in the case mentioned (as well as various parking firms. solicitors etc,) know who they are really dealing with.......

Quoted for posterity, for the utter mangling of the English language. The Plain English Campaign would be up in arms.

(Even ampersand's posts are more coherent than that)

safarmuk

There is a lot of dirty laundry that will be aired in public in due course

Is this "staff canteen pork" related dirty laundry? :eek: