Phase 1: CCJ Removed. Phase 2: Claim Discontinued. Phase 3: Costs.

Johnersh

The etymology of the vernacular is most definitely Anglo Saxon. 

The Courts have referred to the expression that way, so not my phrasing.  I don't have that judgment to hand just now.  It concerns an arrest, as I recall. 

Umkomaas

Johnersh said:

The etymology of the vernacular is most definitely Anglo Saxon. 

The Courts have referred to the expression that way, so not my phrasing.  I don't have that judgment to hand just now.  It concerns an arrest, as I recall. 

Rather more subtle than Arkell v Pressdram! ✌️

Johnersh

Indeed, but that never went to a hearing. Classic PrivateEye mind

B789

As a light reprieve from such a long thread, here is the Arkell v Pressdram story:

This case is well known among lawyers and journalists, especially the phrase "I refer you to the reply given in Arkell and Pressdram". Basically, it refers to a legal case whereby Mr Arkell was accused by the British satirical magazine Private Eye of illicit payments, and they had ample evidence to back this up. After printing the allegations, they received the following letter:

Solicitor's letter to Private Eye:

We act for Mr Arkell who is Retail Credit Manager of Granada TV Rental Ltd.

His attention has been drawn to an article appearing in the issue of Private Eye dated 9th April 1971 on page 4. The statements made about Mr Arkell are entirely untrue and clearly highly defamatory.

We are therefore instructed to require from you immediately your proposals for dealing with the matter. Mr Arkell's first concern is that there should be a full retraction at the earliest possible date in Private Eye and he will also want his costs paid. His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply.

The reply that Private Eye sent back was:

We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr J. Arkell.

We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fcuk off.

A libel writ with a "curt note" arrived by return of post. The legal process continued for more than a year before the case fell apart and Private Eye was awarded costs. The Eye wrote, "In view of the above, Mr Arkell has now, albeit belatedly, complied with the suggestion made to him at an earlier stage in the proceedings."

So, if you have been referred to the reply given in Arkell v Pressdram, it basically means: fcuk off.

Harvez63

Hello All, hope every is still helping others and fighting the good fight

Just under a month to go to court. I've have just been reviewing @Daman1985 case again. BWL have sent the same evidence used in his case, as mine; and I wondered if I could bring something new at court on the day?  Note, I have very little interest in playing fair, they haven't, I'm not being beat by underhand tactics by these scumbags. I'm happy to walk close to the legal line of what I can do, what I shouldn't do, and what I must not do.  

In my witness statement, point 20 I wrote: The new exit sign which was not in place on 28.12.2017 now makes it clear that parking restrictions are in place [Exhibit 11].

 
remember, due to their 3rd administration error they where granted some additional time to submit their WS. Basically, they made sure they saw my hand before submitting their hand. Now back to the above, with @Daman1985, they submitted evidence in his case showing the mentioned sign at 2016, and 2018


 


They stopped the exhibits in my case short of showing these, because there where not there during my visit in 2017 which would have strengthened my case I believe. 

Is this something I could use?? 

Again, I'm so annoyed with the courts for initially ordering them to submit their bundle 2 weeks before mine, but then because of an "administrative error" by BWL, allow them a further month which they took the full 29 days and 22hours to correct their error.

Sorry for the rant at the end. But hey, am I onto something with this or wasting my own time?

Coupon-mad

Does GSV in 2016 show a sign - or are you suggesting this isn't true?

Harvez63

it's hard because its on the back of another sign from where all the views are taken, but I'd suggest 2016 GSV does show it.

I dont know if I'm reading too much into this, I feel there's something BWL are hiding with it. 

My argument is this is the most important sign, it's readable and on the exit of the car park. Its photographed in 2016, but they do not show photos of it with the 2017 sign bundle, then its photographed again in 2018 by BWL (from the other case). 

July 2017 GSV (the evidence I'm relying on), it could be there, it might not be; I'm not sure. Maybe I'm wasting my time with this then

Coupon-mad

I don't think you are.  I recall several threads years ago and the signs went up and down more often than...the proverbial!

It would be hard to trawl back and find old 2017 threads and (unless they include photos with the date embedded) they'd only be hearsay.

But if it is your case that the sign was not there in 2017 then that is your honest position.

Harvez63

Do I take the two photos to trail then just incase and present it to the judge saying in an identical case as mine, the claimant submitted additional photos then they did to me, showing that the exit sign which made things clear was documented in 2016 and 2018, but 2017 was missed? Almost identical evidence packs. 

Not sure how this gets dropped into the convo, but I'll try if its going to further help me 

Coupon-mad

You'll have to play it by ear on the day and take your cue from the Judge.  Prepare well - but be led by what you can suss that the Judge is liking, and move on if he/she looks disinterested in a point.

Don't forget your costs at the end!