Rekha Patel loses her house

[TheHallouminati]

Wakeman52 wrote
Who's going to take someone with her history on?

This is a job for SHOUTY MAN !!

(He's acted for her before, so why not?)

https://www.legalcheek.com/2019/03/drug ... tion-time/

[Dr. Caligari]

"Fraud unravels all". But of course that applies to actual fraud, not just mentioning the word.

"Fraud will vitiate any, even the most solemn, transactions, and any asserted title founded upon it is utterly void."--United States v. The Schooner Amistad, 40 U.S. 518, 594 (1841).

[AnOwlCalledSage]

"Fraud will vitiate any, even the most solemn, transactions, and any asserted title founded upon it is utterly void."--United States v. The Schooner Amistad, 40 U.S. 518, 594 (1841).

Unluckily for Rekha she doesn't live in the USA.

[Dr. Caligari]

"Fraud will vitiate any, even the most solemn, transactions, and any asserted title founded upon it is utterly void."--United States v. The Schooner Amistad, 40 U.S. 518, 594 (1841).

Unluckily for Rekha she doesn't live in the USA.

Or in 1841.

[grixit]

I think for the FMOTL types the word "fraud" is considered some sort of magic bullet that can reverse any decision or be used to dispute any sort of liability. There'll be a technical term for her specific case, similar to Woman Neelu's example of the "wrong size numberplate fraud" suffered by her son.

Fraud, like treason, is defined as anything they don't like, such as having to pay taxes or repay loans.

And of course, people who commit fraud and treason are probably also child molesters.

[Gregg]

"Fraud will vitiate any, even the most solemn, transactions, and any asserted title founded upon it is utterly void."--United States v. The Schooner Amistad, 40 U.S. 518, 594 (1841).

Unluckily for Rekha she doesn't live in the USA.

Or in 1841.

I was gonna chip in that the cited case means phukall in an English courtroom, but y'all beat me to it.

[aesmith]

But this would .. Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd & Ors [2019] UKSC 13 (20 March 2019)

68. This appeal turns on the outcome of a bare-knuckle fight between two important and long-established principles of public policy. The first is that fraud unravels all. The second is that there must come an end to litigation. I will call them the fraud principle and the finality principle. On the facts of this case I agree with Lord Kerr that the fraud principle should prevail.

[Wakeman52]

But this would .. Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd & Ors [2019] UKSC 13 (20 March 2019)

68. This appeal turns on the outcome of a bare-knuckle fight between two important and long-established principles of public policy. The first is that fraud unravels all. The second is that there must come an end to litigation. I will call them the fraud principle and the finality principle. On the facts of this case I agree with Lord Kerr that the fraud principle should prevail.

This is the case that I referred to earlier. However, I maintain that it will take an awful lot of effort (for which read cash) to get the UK Supreme Court involved with our heroine's case. To try and do so seems like a futile exercise. She has to show that some kind of fraud occurred; by whom, pray? This whole saga began when she chose to ignore advice & planning legislation relating to a Grade II listed building; by doing so, another property was damaged. She doesn't seem ever to have really accepted this fundamental point, appealing (more than once) against the resulting court case she lost, and so is the author of her present woes.

I have absolutely no sympathy for someone who has wilfully put her career, home and life to the sword.

[Pottapaug1938]

Wreckha whining loudly about FRAUD!!!!!!! reminds me of the scene from Citizen Kane in which two of Kane's top newsmen are choosing between one of two dummy front pages for the next morning's paper. Kane had been running for Governor of his state; but just before the election, the married Kane was caught visiting the apartment of his cupcake-on-the-side; and even without the "church counties" vote totals having been reported, Kane was suffering a landslide defeat. The newsmen chose to go with the front page which said, in smaller type, "Charles Foster Kane Defeated", and below it, in the largest available type, "FRAUD AT POLLS!"

[He Who Knows]

aesmith wrote
But this would .. Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd & Ors [2019] UKSC 13 (20 March 2019)

68. This appeal turns on the outcome of a bare-knuckle fight between two important and long-established principles of public policy. The first is that fraud unravels all. The second is that there must come an end to litigation. I will call them the fraud principle and the finality principle. On the facts of this case I agree with Lord Kerr that the fraud principle should prevail.

The main question of the March 2019 case is whether Takhar actually signed a document or whether it was forged.
The main question of Rekha Patel's case is was she responsible for sawing off the thackstones and damaging the drain gulley to the next door neighbour's house or not? Unlike an unwitnessed signature, it is easy to lift the lead flashings and see the evidence decades or centuries later.

[ArthurWankspittle]

aesmith wrote
But this would .. Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd & Ors [2019] UKSC 13 (20 March 2019)

68. This appeal turns on the outcome of a bare-knuckle fight between two important and long-established principles of public policy. The first is that fraud unravels all. The second is that there must come an end to litigation. I will call them the fraud principle and the finality principle. On the facts of this case I agree with Lord Kerr that the fraud principle should prevail.

The main question of the March 2019 case is whether Takhar actually signed a document or whether it was forged.
The main question of Rekha Patel's case is was she responsible for sawing off the thackstones and damaging the drain gulley to the next door neighbour's house or not? Unlike an unwitnessed signature, it is easy to lift the lead flashings and see the evidence decades or centuries later.

That ^.
Unless Rekha is going to show that an important signature is forged, I don't see the connection.

[longdog]

Given her failed attempts to put Château Patel out of reach of the courts through sham sales to sham companies any attempt to claim fraud by the other party would be a wonderful display of pot, kettle, sooty arse.

[TheHallouminati]

longdog wrote:
Given her failed attempts to put Château Patel out of reach of the courts through sham sales to sham companies any attempt to claim fraud by the other party would be a wonderful display of pot, kettle, sooty arse.

Totally agree. The solicitor from Warrington (David Burton-Baddeley) who conveyed her cottage for £2 to her parents then again for £100 to Tunkashila had massively put at risk his practising certificate.
Especially considering that he had form - he was previously fined by the SRA for dodgy accounting practises...

dannyno wrote: ↑

From the Warrington Guardian, 10 July 2009:

Solicitor faces disciplinary tribunal

A town centre solicitor will appear before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal following a ruling by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

David Burton-Baddeley, of Longlands Solicitors on Wilson Patten Street, is alleged to have taken money out of clients' accounts without their authorisation.

He is also accused of failing to maintain properly written up accountancy books, failing to inform clients of commission he received or seeking their consent to retain it.

It is alleged that he conducted himself 'in a manner likely to compromise or impair his integrity and his duty to act in the best interest of his clients'.

A date has not yet been set for his hearing at the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.

Mr Burton-Baddeley specialises in civil litigation, financial and investment services and personal injury claims.

His lawyers were approached for comment but were not available as the Guardian went to press.

According to the Law Society Gazette, 24 June 2010, the case of Ian David Burton-Baddeley was heard on 4 February 2010, and the reasons published 7 May 2010.

The outcome was:

The SDT ordered that the respondent, of Warrington, Cheshire WA1, should pay a fine of £12,500. The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £16,932.

[AndyPandy]

I think the ‘fraud’ she’s referring to is she’s never received a brake down of the costs (£94k??) charged by the Solicitors firm (Plexus Law) representing her neighbour.

As far as she was concerned there were no costs payable, she received a written Court Order to pay £17500 (which she paid) but no costs were attached, that’s what she’s always disputed and how she lost the cottage.

[longdog]

I think the ‘fraud’ she’s referring to is she’s never received a brake down of the costs (£94k??) charged by the Solicitors firm (Plexus Law) representing her neighbour.

As far as she was concerned there were no costs payable, she received a written Court Order to pay £17500 (which she paid) but no costs were attached, that’s what she’s always disputed and how she lost the cottage.

I suspect am pretty sure near certain the court order will have said "...costs to be paid by the respondent" or words to that effect.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Yet again that ^

Not only is it likely to be in the judgement some where but the judge will have an idea of the figure. Further, if the costs are outrageous then IIRC you can appeal them. (Which is why the judge will keep an eye on them to avoid that particular waste of court time.) Also, am I not correct in thinking that Rekha lost, appealed and lost the appeal? I'd bet an expert barrister on property boundaries, construction and planning is at least £500 an hour, so no problem clocking up, what was it? £70k?

[He Who Knows]

After 8 years of litigation resulting in over 20 court orders and two appeals at London's High Court, any change out of her £162k sale of cottage would be a bargain in legal fees.

[AndyPandy]

After 8 years of litigation resulting in over 20 court orders and two appeals at London's High Court, any change out of her £162k sale of cottage would be a bargain in legal fees.

That was her problem, as she gleefully went about her vexatious litigation I don't think it ever dawned on her that she'd end up being liable for the other sides costs.

If she'd simply accepted the damage her builder had created and paid up the compensation due as apparently the damage wasn't limited to the Thackstones, none of this would ever had happened

[longdog]

Did she ever have a real lawyer of her own in the case or was just her own legal genius and great legal minds she'd found on the internet?

I wonder if she even realised how much lawyers, particularly at the high court level, cost.

[ArthurWankspittle]

I wonder if she even realised how much lawyers, particularly at the high court level, cost.

She does now.
Also, in typical FMOTL/SocCit type thinking there has been an element of keeping on going because she has to be right and the other side wrong.
Further reading re costs https://www.gdlaw.co.uk/site/library/le ... -and-wales
There are a lot of caveats and "sometimes" in there but you get the idea. The winning side can't just go pulling figures out of the air. Note especially 2. and 6. in that link.