Sunday, April 27, 2008

Excessive Costs

Well done Mr Justice Floyd

Excessive Costs

Yes, the court should take control on the issue of costs eg a party must deliver up what is in their "knowledge, possession and control" material to the case under the rules of discovery - therefore your statement "excessive costs" is probably where there is an issue.

Moreover, law firms and barristers dealing with their legal arguments must research the relevant law - and look how quickly you get a response via google and shock horror top law firms have legal databases in every practice area at the click of a mouse and up-to-date library's - they also get the latest legal news from the media and specific legal journals and some of them even write articles in their practice area!!, ie the law is largely electronically based now.

However, do admit "reading time" costs too - but the whole library! Were the lawyers on a learning curve! Sometimes outsourcing to Counsel is prudent!

(Whilst working as a practising fee earner paralegal I did really like to do the research - especially delving into the obscure law - and the most obscure I ever visited was R v Hennessy [1758] 1 Bur for my personal research on the Woolf Reforms and some very IN NEED OF CODIFICATION banking statutory law going back to the 18th Century - "countermand" and how banks clear cheques - 3 different ways, which took a wee while, I reckon Mr Justice Floyd is spot on, especially given the actual cost of the court fees on any case is miniscule!)

Of note is that the case took 5 days at trial - not a huge case then!! or [mischieviously] did Mr Justice Floyd speedily cut through the crap and dispense with the case thereby upsetting the apple cart of a case prepared for longer than one week!

Is the issue: the solicitor serves the client or the client serves the solicitor - in the latter situation there is a need to refer to the Law Society and the Office of Supervision of Solicitors for (a) bringing the profession into disrepute; and/or (b) professional and ethical misconduct!!

Saturday, April 26, 2008

Landmark Case

Well done Mr Justice Andrew Smith

Judgment to be released Thursday: a landmark ruling is the ultimate goal of a Justice system - the uniformity of one good decision in natural law impacts on the maximum population in a community for their benefit and good, where there has been injustice and detriment. It raises the bar of standards of reasonableness and ethical conduct and is a historical testament of value on where society has been and now "is", the judgment effectively stipulates "this is what "ought" to be the standard in society.

Banks to refund Unfair Charges

Banks to refund Unfair Charges

Saturday, April 12, 2008

Human Rights/Freedom of Choice-Virtual Court/One Sided Judgment

Today's newspapers have been very informative:

Firstly, good to see this : well done Lord Justice Collins - it is important and necessary:

Human Rights - Right to Life

Secondly, this is the nonsense concerning the Woolf Reforms - a mediation is not necessarily cost effective and may not settle this dispute whereby litigation would have been desireable. What is necessary is giving people the choice of forum, with a right to thereafter choose to litigate if needs must by ensuring that limitation periods are not applied - albeit I would argue a limitation period is a piece of nonsense in any event.

This shows that the judicial system is not fit for purpose in the 21st century. The costs in this case should not be at this level and basically the judiciary and the legal profession, I suspect, have done a mickey take on these people. These types of claims should be low value claims as they only need to "reiterate" the rule of law, not challenge it. It does not take too much nouse for an IT programmer to come up with a system which is affordable and can be accessed by lawyers as a package deal, similar to how the conveyancing system processes buying and selling of property. The judges in this case are probably not in control of their courtroom, there is probably a lot of procedural abuse by the legal profession on both sides - someone should really take a look at this case with a view to bringing the judiciary into the 21st century, ie get real.

Litigation v Mediation - need some judicial nouse/freedom of choice/virtual courts

Thirdly, this is of interest:

"Miss Mills described her divorce battle with Sir Paul - in which she represented herself - as "David versus Goliath".
She said she is "arguing on a daily basis" with the judge Mr Justice Bennett to get the full transcripts of the case released and described the current available court papers as a "one-sided judgment". "

One sided Judgment

This is clearly of interest as my judgment at the EAT posted below reflects the same issue that Ms Mills is arguing here. In my case, the legal arguments put to the judge and contained in the appeal document MUST be premised on a point of law at appeal - in my litigation, substantively 5 case precedent, 3 statutory references and 3 clauses in a common law contract - none are in the resulting judgment and it is clear that the judge was bent as it was an ex parte application hearing (which the Respondent's senior employment in-house lawyer attended!) and therefore should have been one sided - ex parte means the other side are not supposed to be present!. Unfortunately my MP is completely unable or unwilling to deal with this issue politically and given I have now completed two litigations with substantively a load of nonsense occurring on each litigation at judicial and legal level it is apparent that the issue is an "inside" job involving a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and criminally defame my good character. I would urge Judge Bennett to deliver up the full judgment or I would say to Ms Mills - you litigated - a court case is public domain - publish the documents, as I consider you do have the right to freedom of expression under the Human Rights Act and therefore may not have your esteem lowered in the public domain by a one sided judgment, especially not by the judiciary who should know better - a right to freedom of expression is restricted by not acting in bad faith (misrepresentation); mistake (which must be rectified when it becomes known), libel, slander, defamation. Mr McCartney even I have trouble swallowing a line that you are worth £400 million when the Rich Lists state £800 million - they must source their knowledge from somewhere or else are all on the Rich List over inflated/evaluated, which might come as a shock to some. A missing £400 million, I think you would notice, be somewhat concerned about or your friends/colleagues/family would be concerned about and if the compilers of the Rich Lists are misrepresenting or making such humungous mistakes then maybe they need to publish the real and actual state of affairs of the Rich and famous. Are we in for a shock or are they! (I don't consider Ms Mills should be standing alone and unsupported on this issue - someone is clearly in the wrong and it is not Ms Mills). I do also question the £3 million legal fee you paid, no doubt the disbursements and outlays would prove interesting under analysis. I worked in a team on a £24 billion global merger in a top 20 London law firm as a £120 per hour fee earner paralegal for a year and I saw the bill, roughly £3 million, albeit it may have been an interim bill.

I googled for the Sunday Times UK Rich List: 2007 came up. I put in Paul McCartney's name and it came up £725m and his place was 102.

Check for yourself:

Sunday Times Rich List - 2007

Friday, April 11, 2008

"The Rule of Law is nothing if it fails to constrain overweening power"

Lord Justice Moses and Lord Justice Sullivan, have just stated:

"We fear for the reputation of the administration of justice if it can be perverted by a threat. No one, whether within this country or outside is entitled to interfere with the course of justice. The rule of law is nothing if it fails to constrain overweening power".

I would say the Lord Justices are both correct and admirable by this statement. I myself do believe that Tony Blair, ex-Prime Minister, has a problem with the application of the rule of law under his term in office and I am also concerned that Lord Woolf was put in charge of this enquiry too. Both judges are correct to reprehend Tony Blair's behaviour and in that regard, I should be grateful if the Lord Justices would also refer him to the Law Society to ensure that he is struck off for breaking the ethical and professional codes of conduct as it is apparent by the representations in the press that the legal profession is in disrepute. I very much doubt that he was operating alone and that others should also be referred too, for instance, the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith.

I watched the news last night and there appeared to be two issues: (a) that the threat of the inquiry would cause us to lose business, via a threat of job losses, with the Middle East; and that (b) that our security would be compromised by the Middle East not engaging in reciprocal arrangements. On neither of these issues do I buy iinto the rhetoric. Firstly, if Saundi Arabia placed £40 + billion orders with us for a product, I credit them with the genuine intelligence to be buying the best or most affordable product available on the marketplace - why then would they go elsewhere. Moreover, the notoriously arrogant French and/or the upright Americans are not likely to "surrender" to the Middle East on any grounds - so why did we concerning this deal. Secondly, if, as is alleged there is a reciprocal security arrangement, then to my mind at whatsoever degree of reciprocity this entailed, low, medium, high, we need each other - furthermore I am concerned if such a reciprocal arrangement exists we have not heard anything in a while concerning the whereabouts and welfare of Osma Bin Laden.

My view has always been that Tony Blair MP is clever, but not intelligent and I am pleased to see the Lord Justices stance on this case affirms what, most of the public already know and have deduced over time.

Therefore I would urge Prime Minister Gordon Brown and all Ministers in the UK not to now have any determination to drive through new statutory powers to shut down investigations or delimit the powers of the application of the rule of law, but to seek the assistance of the Saudi Arabians to sort this matter out with any degree of modesty, decorum and integrity that both sides can now muster as diplomacy.

Guardian: 11/4/8

In light of the Lord Justices comments: I should also be grateful if the Prime Minister/his office can now deal with my genunine concerns that corruption has a foothold "within" the Ministry of Justice (on two, potentially three civil litigations) and out it - nobody is irreplaceable and I have no doubt that the legal profession and journalism have a good idea of what is going on now: so why do I appear to be being ignored/experiencing evesdropping/escotericism. The blog posts below are self-explanatory albeit I have not given access to all documents in my knowledge, possession and control at this time due to a third litigation: you only have to ask. There is public interest material in the cases.