Not the driver or keeper, driver now living abroad

Slainte1

Thanks to you both @Umkomaas and @Coupon-mad.  

 I have adjusted images to make them clearer and included in the following documents, which I will convert to pdf and send today.  Preliminary matters and exhibits (cases relevant to Chan)

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/jucu9yx4efbqyai9trunk/Preliminary-matter-AL.docx?rlkey=h0dw536na79kjr16wziwyxmyk&dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/home/Minster Baywatch/minster baywatch evidence?di=left_nav_browse#

Slainte1

Coupon-mad said:

Thanks, very clear.

If they were not the driver or keeper they should also add transcripts for Excel v Smith and VCS v Edward.  All are on appeal and all are on this forum and are persuasive and relevant.

Those 3 appeal cases could win the case.

I have used Excel v Smith and will look for VCS V Edward
What do I call the submission re CEL v Chan when I send today.  Do I describe it as additional information come to light and then include in the bundle of the skeleton statement
I am dealing with Minster Baywatch, not CEL.  Please clarify, do I have to submit a bundle, including witness statement, exhibits, defence, skeleton argument .  I have compiled most already but my printer has packed up!! 

Slainte1

Please could someone share Fenton v Fairlie with me.  I know the jist of the case but need to study it

Coupon-mad

There is only a short excerpt of Fairlie online somewhere - not a full transcript. Use that.

VCS v Edward I've linked loads of times and written wording for recently. Copy that.

You describe it as 'my skeleton argument and relevant persuasive appeal cases and/or case law to support my case'.

That's it. You don't have to apologise for a skeleton argument!

Slainte1

I'm not clear how VCS v Edward is relevant to me , as I was not the driver and have inferred (should I provide proof...although I'm not arguing the NTK was defective) that I was elsewhere at the time.  The driver was the usual driver of the vehicle, I have my own. The driver is still living abroad.  I'm guessing its still the case that I shouldn't name them.

Le_Kirk

VCS v Edward is all about Edward not being the driver and that the claimant cannot assume they were just because they were the keeper.

Slainte1

Le_Kirk said:

VCS v Edward is all about Edward not being the driver and that the claimant cannot assume they were just because they were the keeper.

I get that, so its about not making assumptions?  In my case Im still not sure where its relevant

Slainte1

@Le_Kirk any advice about submitting a bundle, does it have to be printed and to Gladstones as well as the court, or will an email suffice for Gladstones.  Do i have to exhibit their photos, if i intend to point out their flaws, or can i rely on the fact theyre in their witness statement and theyre not turning up

Coupon-mad

Slainte1 said:

Le_Kirk said:

VCS v Edward is all about Edward not being the driver and that the claimant cannot assume they were just because they were the keeper.

I get that, so its about not making assumptions?  In my case Im still not sure where its relevant

It's completely relevant if Minster Baywatch's NTK was non-POFA.  Have we checked?

Have you also got and already put into evidence, the written judgment from a Judge this year, about the MB/Bransby Wilson question?  Makes your case dead easy.

Slainte1

@Coupon-mad here is the link to NTK

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/115fngwzdh8pzf58xink1/Notice-to-keeper-redacted.pdf?rlkey=55u2bdwwzj193ouhvef28ujpw&dl=0

Sorry haven't seen the recent judgement against MB .  Is it too late to include? My WS is getting pretty big