CABOT UK LTD v BACHELLIER [2010]

[brando69]

Re: CABOT UK LTD v BACHELLIER [2010]

I've removed the name of the solicitors.

Please send a pm to Paul. He works there!!

He's one of our mods.

Sorry, didn't know I couldn't mention their name I have sent a pm to Paul

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: CABOT UK LTD v BACHELLIER [2010]

It's to avoid unnecessary calls to their main office. It's better that the users here get referred as we pick out those less likely to win to save a lot of time etc...

Everyone knows who Paul works for, however we tend to pm him here unless he gives you the details or we refer you. We don't want any advertising really as if your name is mentioned on the all-about forum; chances are this will follow it

Therefore as Paul is a good guy, best keep his work & pleasure separate

[Paul.]

Re: CABOT UK LTD v BACHELLIER [2010]

ive answered best i can

It would help to know what the pleadings say to know what were dealing with

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: CABOT UK LTD v BACHELLIER [2010]

Can you briefly answer on here, obviously de-personalising it for us lot please matey

[Paul.]

Re: CABOT UK LTD v BACHELLIER [2010]

WEll the Bulk Centre rules has a limit of 1024 characters

a CCBC member should either be able to particularise its claim inside this limit, or state "particulars to follow" or if it cannot do this then it should use the normal county court like the rest of us.

So, looking at Cabots recent pleadings, they are woeful, some have been under 300 characters thus leaving 700 free, which is clearly outsideo f the bulk centre membership rules

This is an abuse and the opponents should be placed on notice that they should plead properly or you apply for an order compelling them to plead properly or struck out, in a nut shell

you cant have a trial when the pleadings are sooo vague that in most cases they dont even allege a breach of contract has occured

[Paul.]

Re: CABOT UK LTD v BACHELLIER [2010]

in short, i was pointing out really that theres no point trying to run before you can walk,

dont send pointless letters asking for this document and that document, especially if its not mentioned in the statement of case as unless its mentioned there is no duty to disclose the document therefore its likely cabot will say " we havent mentioned it so you cant have it" so put pressure on them and make them plead properly from the outset

[5corpio]

Re: CABOT UK LTD v BACHELLIER [2010]

i too got one of those Doggy 'Mr Messy & Men' MBNA - That can be used too somewhere on ere - See Niddy

Thanks Paul, great result and read

[Paul.]

Re: CABOT UK LTD v BACHELLIER [2010]

Well ive seen the pleadings

293 characters used

leaving 731 available to the Claimant

Frankly that is disgusting and needs sorting out, you cannot deal with such a shocking claim , it needs a repleading for starters

seems Cabot have gone down hill. I look forward ot meeting them in court soon lol

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: CABOT UK LTD v BACHELLIER [2010]

Cabot have gone down hill.

Is that possible?

[GlobalC]

Re: Cabot Financial (UK) Limited-v Bachellier [2010]

This judgment will help most the people that have those dodgy 1 minute mbna flyer type applications, the ones with tiny smudged terms that are totally illegible.

Usually I've confirmed to those users that the documents are unenforceable so this will be handy to utilise in a new specific mbna template where such terms were issued (you know the ones, tiny piece of paper with smudged terms on a microfiche)...

I'll sort a template for future users, however in the meantime this is good news. Well done Paul & Watsons (our preferred solicitors)....

This will directly affect people such as Oscar (from memory) and others that got an mbna card around 1997-2003 (ish)!

Hi Niddy, i have one of these dodgy micro fishe's, it has now been sold to link financial and was hoping there would be a template to use for this, please check my diary here please.thanks

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: CABOT UK LTD v BACHELLIER [2010]

Replied to diary.