Joinder wrote:These High Court "applications", how do they work? Can anyone apply for one and the other party is obliged to attend ?
If you're summons (ordered to attend) and fail to appear, it's contempt of court for which you can be arrested, held in the Court cells until end of business day then the matter you were supposed to attend for will be dealt with.
Joinder wrote:These High Court "applications", how do they work? Can anyone apply for one and the other party is obliged to attend ?
If you're summons (ordered to attend) and fail to appear, it's contempt of court for which you can be arrested, held in the Court cells until end of business day then the matter you were supposed to attend for will be dealt with.
I'm not sure about that - contempt, that is.
I thought that in injunction applications (which I think Joinder is referring to), the procedure is different - if the defendant doesn't show to appeal why the injunction shouldn't be allowed, the injunction is given and costs awarded (if applied for).
Assuming of course that the judge deems that there are sufficient grounds for an injunction.
Joinder wrote:These High Court "applications", how do they work? Can anyone apply for one and the other party is obliged to attend ?
If you're summons (ordered to attend) and fail to appear, it's contempt of court for which you can be arrested, held in the Court cells until end of business day then the matter you were supposed to attend for will be dealt with.
I'm not sure about that - contempt, that is.
I thought that in injunction applications (which I think Joinder is referring to), the procedure is different - if the defendant doesn't show to appeal why the injunction shouldn't be allowed, the injunction is given and costs awarded (if applied for).
Assuming of course that the judge deems that there are sufficient grounds for an injunction.
You might be right, I thought a Summons was a Summons, but it may be different for Injunction applications.
Just looked at the Civil Procedure Rules on Interim Injunctions, doesn't say the respondent has to attend, but presumably if they don't they can't argue against any injunction imposed, or damages and costs if awarded !
I always thought you didn't have to attend a civil procedure, however the risk of not doing so, is that the case may be decided in your absence and you might wind up with a default judgement and costs. So while you can do it, it's not a good idea not to do it.
As for Ceylon, Tom, Amanda, Craig et al. I'd like to see their arguments that Yiam was stalking them, which I don't doubt they will have raised (admittedly these can be gotten around by pointing out that as a result of his 'charity work' Ceylon has become a minor public figure/nuisance, that Tom, Amanda and Craig have all made themselves out to be public figures in relation to their protestations about losing Fearn Chase. Finally I'd add that Yiam, like all of us, is more than aware that Tom's current bail conditions prevent him from going near Fearn Chase or the Elwes Arms. It would therefore be highly unlikely that Yiam would have been stalking Tom by going to places in Carlton he knew Tom was not allowed to be.
Of course I imagine if they turned up, they've turned this into another argument that Tom had his house stolen by the corrupt banks and not because of the whole not paying all of the mortgage thing.
Did Haining arrest the Master?
Did Tom produce the 'warrant' from his hat?
Did Amanda wear her onesie?
Did Craig sell the Master one of his investment scams?
Did the Nottingham Grand Jury overrule the the Queen's Bench?
Or as expected, did the defendants fail to grace the RCJ with their presence?
Oh the irony of theGet Out Of Debt Freewebsite
Now owned by a debt management company Bye bye Ceylon
Thanks for all the answers but doesn't anyone have to decide beforehand if there is any merit in the case being brought?....surely you just don't apply to the court, naming someone you dislike and they have to drop everything to attend ?
As I understand it, if you issue proceedings then yes the defendants should respond to them which could be in the form of attendance or a witness statement.
However, if those proceedings are without merit (something Tom's very familiar with) then the claimant could be liable to costs and potentially a counter claim.
Oh the irony of theGet Out Of Debt Freewebsite
Now owned by a debt management company Bye bye Ceylon
getoutofdebtfools wrote:As I understand it, if you issue proceedings then yes the defendants should respond to them which could be in the form of attendance or a witness statement.
However, if those proceedings are without merit (something Tom's very familiar with) then the claimant could be liable to costs and potentially a counter claim.
Jesus, I never knew that.
Is this what our courts are really for ?....Its like an adult version of "telling teacher".
getoutofdebtfools wrote:So Yiam, what happened today?
Did Haining arrest the Master?
Did Tom produce the 'warrant' from his hat?
Did Amanda wear her onesie?
Did Craig sell the Master one of his investment scams?
Did the Nottingham Grand Jury overrule the the Queen's Bench?
Or as expected, did the defendants fail to grace the RCJ with their presence?
Strange that our chap is so quiet. What's the nearest hospital to that court ?
Joinder wrote:Thanks for all the answers but doesn't anyone have to decide beforehand if there is any merit in the case being brought?....surely you just don't apply to the court, naming someone you dislike and they have to drop everything to attend ?
Nobody has to decide beforehand if there is any merit, assuming that you are talking about a civil injunction?
Joinder wrote:Thanks for all the answers but doesn't anyone have to decide beforehand if there is any merit in the case being brought?....surely you just don't apply to the court, naming someone you dislike and they have to drop everything to attend ?
Nobody has to decide beforehand if there is any merit, assuming that you are talking about a civil injunction?
Is that what you are referring to?
I don't really understand any of it, I just find it unbelievable that this sort of carry on is allowed to clog up the court system. I'm going to have to read up on it.
Joinder wrote:Thanks for all the answers but doesn't anyone have to decide beforehand if there is any merit in the case being brought?....surely you just don't apply to the court, naming someone you dislike and they have to drop everything to attend ?
Nobody has to decide beforehand if there is any merit, assuming that you are talking about a civil injunction?
Is that what you are referring to?
They also don't have to drop anything to attend, if it's clear that the application is without merit, the claim should be struck out. It's explained here https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/proce ... pd_part03a. However sometimes this gets missed, Judges are human and fallible, it's why we have appeal courts. In the event a claim doesn't get struck out, you can apply for summary judgement under Part 24 https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/proce ... les/part24.
Using this can help to save everyone time and costs, because it allows the court to dispense with a case when it will basically be a waste of time. To be honest I'm surprised that Gillard and BK didn't throw an application for summary judgement against Haining when he tried to get his injunction. It would have messed with his head and convinced him the courts are even more corrupt.
Whatever point he was making just came out of the blue not attached to anything. If he did it for any reason apart from being hostile I don't see it.
And, if I recall, I've chastised him as a moderator. I'm still unclear if he is posting as someone actually interested in the topics discussed or as a troll. Although, to be fair, he could be both. He seems to participate mainly to criticize other posters over things that make little sense to me.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".
Bye bye Ceylon 
