Jump to content

CRT v Andy Wingfield Update


Featured Posts

 

Another one of your way off target and incorrect assumptions, . . . I've absolutely no intention of buying a Licence at all.

 

A wonderful outlook. What if we all took that tack?

Edited by Ray T
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A wonderful outlook. What if we all took that tack?

 

I rather think Tony is highlighting the fact that he does not need a “licence” for the waterways he uses; if navigating those he needs only a pleasure boat certificate.

 

[sorry if that was a spoiler, Tony]

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It is more than a little ridiculous. There is nothing new that has arisen of which they were not fully aware from before they even served the s.8 Notice on you.

 

This makes it so obvious that they prematurely served you with the s.8, and with filing suit in the County Court, hoping that their efforts to have Leigh’s case thrown out would succeed, and that only now that a date has been set, have they finally given up such hope.

 

Rather then agreeing to a Consent Order for adjournment, might it not be possible to move instead for a Strike-Out for abuse of process or something similar? They were fully aware from your earlier case that the grounds you would rely on were the same as R v CaRT after all.

 

That is not a positive recommendation, just noting a potential possibility.

 

 

 

edit to add: might there not even be a case for having the Claim against you declared vexatious, under the circumstances?

 

 

Apart from them not having a hope in Hell of getting me to agree to a Consent Order to stay the proceedings, I'm as yet undecided on the course of action which is most likely to bring the maximum benefit to others who may possibly be future Section 8 targets.

 

As far as I'm aware the Courts won't even start thinking about labeling a litigant as vexatious until they've chalked up their third vexatious Claim, so getting this on the record as one such would at least be a start, and is high on the list of considerations.

 

I rather think Tony is highlighting the fact that he does not need a “licence” for the waterways he uses; if navigating those he needs only a pleasure boat certificate.

 

[sorry if that was a spoiler, Tony]

 

Blessed be the peacemakers ! rolleyes.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As far as I'm aware the Courts won't even start thinking about labeling a litigant as vexatious until they've chalked up their third vexatious Claim, so getting this on the record as one such would at least be a start, and is high on the list of considerations.

 

The courts will only brand a litigant as vexatious after the third determination that their claims are “totally without merit”.

 

Mr Stoner attempted to have one of my claims so branded, but thankfully the Master disagreed [he even suggested I had missed my vocation – but I am not sure that that was not a hint that I had made a reasonable case out of a hopeless one!]

 

I did allow myself, at the time, to express some disappointment with the opposition for resorting to such a tactic – it would not grieve me to see the same applied to them.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.