Follow RoF

For all the breaking news, follow RoF on Twitter and Facebook

         
   
  

Asia-Pacific

Check out this week's top Asia-Pacific news on the Asia Pacific Headline page.
  
  

Main Discussion

Rate it
0
Report as offensive
cІubman
Posted - 12 May 2017 09:20
Along the way one of my terribly grand silks last year exclaimed on visiting the little local court "oh gosh I haven't been anywhere like this for years"
Lydia
Posted - 12 May 2017 09:28
Report as offensive
First neighbours should try to avoid going to court over boundaries. Surely they can try mediation or just each give way a bit?

Secondly I think the courts are partly at fault for not making it very very clear that dates cannot easily be changed and how important it is. If I have a client like last week who has never been to court, months before I start a process of letting them know how it all works, that you cannot just not turn up on the day, that it is very hard to change dates etc etc I suspect the couple had no idea of the system and that yuou cannot just insist a date is changed.

I don't think it was the wrong decision. I don't think this old man was making up his illness (as plenty of people do who are "off sick") so it certainly deserved consideration on appeal but even so it was the right decision.
camenbert
Posted - 12 May 2017 09:39
Report as offensive
yes. The fact that they started to make up stuff about their papers being stolen completely removes any sympathy for them IMO.
cІubman
Posted - 12 May 2017 09:41
Report as offensive
I'm with cam
sporting_zucchini
Posted - 12 May 2017 09:44
Report as offensive
I've just read that Bailii report.

The approach seems entirely consistent with the way the Courts just press on with trials, making it extremely difficult for parties to get adjournments even if all parties and their experts agree there is a good reason for an adjournment. It used to be much easier.

Boundary dispute + LIPs who want to keep fighting ad nauseam? Force the idiots to mediate instead. Even fixing a trial date merely encourages them.
Heffalump
Posted - 12 May 2017 09:45
Report as offensive
really? the fact you tell a lie about something means you lose the right to have the underlying dispute determined?

the couple who found themselves facing a trial without legal representation (as apparently their legal insurance had run out) having received the papers only a few days beforehand in the midst of one of them undergoing surgery for what may or may not have been surgery

not sure this counts as justice in my book

Heffalump
Posted - 12 May 2017 09:46
Report as offensive
the last "surgery" in my post should be "cancer"

many many people when facing desperate situations do silly things. If they are represented by lawyers then usually they are saved from themselves.
old git roundabout
Posted - 12 May 2017 09:47
Report as offensive
yes.
Mr Sugden
Posted - 12 May 2017 09:47
Report as offensive
Yes. They were completely in the wrong in the issues and tried to circumvent this by garnering judicial sympathy in playing the sickness & cant take part card.
Heffalump
Posted - 12 May 2017 09:48
Report as offensive
neighbour disputes cause despair in any right minded lawyer
but you have to bear in mind that sometimes in a seemingly intractable dispute there may be only one side behaving unreasonably
encourage people to mediate by all means but some cases just need a proper fair hearing to decide the merits of the position
Mr Sugden
Posted - 12 May 2017 09:53
Report as offensive
camenbert
Posted - 12 May 2017 09:55
Report as offensive
I agree they were out of representation. I agree that he had *some* illness at certain points. The CoA finds that one of the illness claims was iffy, and another not backed by proper evidence. Then they start making stuff up, which seriously goes to their credibility on the iffy illness stuff.

In effect, I think what happened is that they got scared and tried to stop it, and then started throwing anything and everything at their attempt to stop it, regardless of it's truth.

yes it's a desperate thing, but does that entitle them to have their evidence effectively treated as better than the other

Para 72 is the killer IMO
"72.The position was further complicated by the fact that there was strong evidence to suggest that Mr and Mrs Salliss had deliberately tried to engineer an adjournment of the trial by delaying their journey to the hospital, by pretending that their papers had either been stolen or mislaid, and (in the case of Mrs Salliss) by enlisting the services of Mr Becker to apply to the judge for an adjournment on the basis of information supplied to him which was demonstrably untrue. The judge heard submissions to this effect from counsel for both claimants, and then explored the evidence relating to Mr Salliss's medical condition and the alleged loss of the papers with Mrs Salliss. He also heard the frankly implausible account given by Mrs O'Connor of the events which led to the papers being placed in Mr Hillier's car, and of the mishap which allegedly occurred on the journey to the hospital. He also elicited an express admission from Mrs Salliss that the papers had indeed been placed in Mr Hillier's car, from which it followed that her claim that they had been lost or stolen was untrue, and deliberately so. In colloquial terms, the judge had every reason to conclude that the court was being messed around by Mr and Mrs Salliss, probably because they perceived that the case was going badly for them"
Heffalump
Posted - 12 May 2017 09:58
Report as offensive
I see I am in a minority of one

...and the DM article does paint quite a powerful picture...

*bows out of fighting the Salliss' corner*

Le Chiffre
Posted - 12 May 2017 09:58
Report as offensive
I think the judge took the view that the Defendants were simply stalling and the Claimants were also entitled to a hearing
sporting_zucchini
Posted - 12 May 2017 09:58
Report as offensive
"If they are represented by lawyers then usually they are saved from themselves."

Exactly. If they make up silly stories, their advocate would try to prevent this prejudicial nonsense being aired in court. I don't think the judges who until recently had been shielded by sols and Counsel from the worst craziness are well equipped enough to handle the deluge of LIPs. Not yet, anyway.

Yes, neighbour disputes bring with them the looniest and most obsessive clients from hell. Avoid. The bigger question is whether one or more parties should be sectioned instead of the merits being decided by a court.

Mr Sugden
Posted - 12 May 2017 10:01
Report as offensive
Their mistake was not engaging the Mozart of the courtroom, Lord Alan Blacker, to represent them. He's an expert in cases where nebulous "illness" and birthdays prevent people from attending hearings in to their cases.
cІubman
Posted - 12 May 2017 10:02
Report as offensive
"Exactly. If they make up silly stories, their advocate would try to prevent this prejudicial nonsense being aired in court. "

heh heh heh

old git roundabout
Posted - 12 May 2017 10:13
Report as offensive
nice to see a robust judge not allowing idiots like this to take the p1ss.
sporting_zucchini
Posted - 12 May 2017 10:23
Report as offensive
Anyway the trial of the merits isn'tnecessarily the end of the dispute. The worst nutters never give up and end up being committed for contempt or having assets sequestered because they won't accept the decision of the Court when land is involved, ever. They may resort to shotguns. A solicitor in Trowbridge was murdered in his office. Terrible.
Hal Incandenza
Posted - 12 May 2017 10:24
Report as offensive
You are in a minority of one, Heff.

A couple of stints as a recorder seeing this bullsh1t every day would sort you out.
Lydia
Posted - 12 May 2017 10:24
Report as offensive
I didn't get to para 72 but just skipped then to the end. That makes me even surere this was right and I suspect the Daily Mail article clinches it for us all.

The bottom line is try to avoid these neighbour disputes going to court. My sister moved house when her last one was difficult. It is often cheaper than litigation!
old git roundabout
Posted - 12 May 2017 10:45
Report as offensive
what about the other parties, and the other users of the 'system'? Were they 'well served' by these antics?