Monday, December 10, 2007

Merry Christmas



















The Teapot House

My Grandmama has a Teapot House,
A china elephant, and a china mouse.
They are just ornaments on a shelf,
The teapot she never uses herself.
In Grandmama’s Teapot House, I know,
Although Grandmama says this is not so,
There lives a Dragon so very small
Grandmama never sees him at all.
But I can. I have seen him a lot!
I know a Dragon’s living in her teapot.
He doesn’t cry, or laugh, or shout,
But I’ve seen his tail coming out of the spout.


Phyllis Jermy Deceased - my Grandmother

This poem was written because my brother when he was very young was convinced the smoke coming out of a teapot meant there was a dragon inside it. An 'innocent' observation and 'deduction'.

Lesley

Scottish Civil Court Review

The Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Gill is now undertaking a consultation process and has published a Consultation Paper: "Scottish Civil Court Review".

A quick rekkie of the Consultation paper shows that this is a far reaching consultation which everyone should be interested in. Responses need to be in by March 2008

Here are the details:

Scottish Civil Court Review

If anyone is seeking to obtain a hard copy of the Consultation it can be obtained for free by emailing: edinburgh@blackwells.co.uk.

Have fun and remember the objective is "Justice" - not "compromise"!!!!! Anticipating you appreciate the strength of my research material and that ADR "must not" be contained within the judicial system. "In the interests of justice" ... STOP THE NONSENSE!

The Halsey Case - 2004

The Halsey and Steel case of 2004 has made two interesting point on ADR within the English & Welsh legal system:

The judgement in the these cases establishes two important principles:

1. compulsion of ADR would be regarded as an unacceptable constraint on the right of access to the court and, therefore, a violation of article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights

2. that the court can decide to deprive successful parties of some or all of their costs on the grounds that they have refused to agree to ADR, but that it must be borne in mind that such an order is an exception to the general rule that costs should follow the event. The burden to justify a departure from the general rule is on the unsuccessful party to show that the successful party acted unreasonably in refusing to agree to ADR

Whilst this issue should never have come down to the human rights level via Lord Justice Dyson, on the premis that my research and intellectual challenges to Government have been known about since 1997, ie that misrepresentation that ADR "within" the court structure is "actually" Access TO Justice, when it is obvious it is the opposite "Access FROM Justice", this case is a development that I was previously unaware of.

Well done Lord Justice Dyson.

Brief Synopsis of The Halsey Case as referred to on the Scottish Mediation Network website

Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust [2004] EWCA Civ 576