Abuse of Process - BW LEGAL win Appeal against strike out

Le_Kirk

Firstly, it is wrong in principle to strike out a claim as an abuse of process on the footing that the claimant knows it to be inflated and unlawful, when there is no evidence that the claimant knows anything of the kind, and no proper basis on which such a state of mind can be inferred. 

If the claimant, who is a solicitor - or purports to be or is legally trained or who has done this many times before - brings a claim that includes "contractual costs" that are outside of POFA, Beavis and the Unfair terms etc, one might say that is a "proper basis" that can be inferred.  Why is the judge talking about a state of mind?  It is a matter of fact that the claim has been brought with inflated costs.  It is a matter of fact that the claim has been brought by a legally trained mind and we are being asked to believe that the same legally trained mind, which is so razor sharp that it can argue points of law with a judge, is also so blunt that it could not know that £100 is the maximum that can be added in LAW and not the the "guide" that is BPA code of practice.
IANAL (and that should be fairly obvious) but it makes my blood boil.

MothballsWallet

Coupon-mad said:

Can you pm it to me, MothballsWallet?

Can you PM attachments under this forum software, C-m?
I'll give it a shot.

Le_Kirk

MothballsWallet said:

Coupon-mad said:

Can you pm it to me, MothballsWallet?

Can you PM attachments under this forum software, C-m?
I'll give it a shot.

Top of the page you will see an envelope, click on that and start typing the recipient's name and it treats it like a personal e-mail.

MothballsWallet

Le_Kirk said:

MothballsWallet said:

Coupon-mad said:

Can you pm it to me, MothballsWallet?

Can you PM attachments under this forum software, C-m?
I'll give it a shot.

Top of the page you will see an envelope, click on that and start typing the recipient's name and it treats it like a personal e-mail.

Cheers - I've already PM'd C-m with it in a slightly different way, so she should see it the next time she logs in.

beamerguy

I agree with Johnersh, the game is still on.
The QC stopped short in expressing the validity of debt recovery charges.  This will apply to those genuine claims .... that is the key word .. genuine

As we know, and have documents to prove, DRP offer a "no win no fee"  Once exposed they changed their site.  We do know that if companies like DRP fail to collect it is passed back to the PPC. Therefore the PPC should be able to prove that they paid the debt collector. That means actually paid and not a swapping of invoices. By the time it gets to court, the debt collectors have failed ?

BWLegal state they act on their clients instructions and should be able to prove a financial transaction took place and not on a paper invoice, if any
This would mean the PPC, as a statement of truth, prove that they actually paid a debt collector and their claim is genuine. At the moment BWLegal and the others simply add the amount without proof.  The parking ticket in itself is proof of a claim albiet how valid it is due to signs etc.
It is still a claim and the court will decide based on the facts. The courts cannot decide on an amount claimed where no proof has been provided
Therefore is the claim in whole or in part GENUINE and is the claim reliable

It is not this forum who introduced ABUSE OF PROCESS, this was picked up from the rulings of Judges Taylor and Grant.  The QC has basically said that Abuse of Process is acceptable providing there is evidence to support it..   The PPC must prove they paid the amount to a debt collector with proof to the solicitor .... before a claim is made and such proof is available to the court.

The PPC should be reminded of the new Civil Procedure rules.

We will still rely on the Supreme Court ruling which the QC did not mention
198. ''...The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme...''

bargepole

I am not going to comment on the potentially libellous comments in BW Legal's published article, for obvious reasons.

However, to give a bit of background to this appeal Judgment, back in November, Britannia Parking represented by BW, applied for a set aside of a previous ruling by DJ Taylor, which struck out a claim against Mr Crosby as an abuse of process due to the inflated sum being claimed. C-M acted as the Lay Rep for Mr Crosby at the set aside hearing on 11 November 2019, and unknown to us previously, there was also another defendant involved, Mr Semark-Julien, joined to the same case.

Mr Semark-Julien is a FMOTL warrior, whose defence had been solely based on the fact that he had never been sent an invoice with a wet ink signature, compliant with the Bills of Exchange Act 1882. This defence was not considered at all by DJ Grand at the set aside hearing, where he described Mr Semark-Julien as a spectator, as indeed did HHJ Parkes QC at the appeal hearing.

When DJ Grand gave his judgment dismissing the set aside application, Mr Semark-Julien did not understand what had happened, or thank C-M for her efforts. As far as he was concerned, it was a vindication of his position, and he knew it all.

BW then launched an appeal, involving Semark-Julien only, and not Mr Crosby. This might be described as clever, or in the alternative cowardly, because they will have known that if Mr Crosby had been included in the appeal, they would almost certainly have been opposed at the appeal hearing by a crowdfunded barrister.

So the net result is that DJ Grand's judgment is overturned in the case of Mr Semark-Julien, but still stands with regard to Mr Crosby. However, HHJ Parkes QC has remitted the case back to Court for trial before a District Judge, where Mr Semark-Julien's defence, and Britannia's claim, will now be heard. It would be ironic, and quite amusing, if at the next hearing the DJ makes an Order similar to this one: http://boevat.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Southampton-Court.pdf

Castle

bargepole said:

So the net result is that DJ Grand's judgment is overturned in the case of Mr Semark-Julien, but still stands with regard to Mr Crosby. However, HHJ Parkes QC has remitted the case back to Court for trial before a District Judge, where Mr Semark-Julien's defence, and Britannia's claim, will now be heard. It would be ironic, and quite amusing, if at the next hearing the DJ makes an Order similar to this one: http://boevat.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Southampton-Court.pdf

Thanks for that particular piece of information-although it does sound a bit like "Schrodinger's Cat" right now.

Redx

It makes you wonder which side you are rooting for , given the fmotl rubbish , but also given the greedy aspect that is abuse of process

The presiding judge may uphold the claimant but strike out the extra spurious charges , is that a win win ?? Lol

Wet signature my **** , said Jim Royle , free man of the city of Liverpool !! fmocl !! Lol 😃😜

paulstevens64

Thanks Bargepole for your calm, succinct clarification of the current situation.

Coupon-mad

Like @bargepole, I won't comment about what has been said.