Q re setting a court date.

borderlinemeath

If a judge sets a specific timeframe for a civil case to be set down and a court date lodged but the plaintiff/plaintiffs solicitors didn't lodge anything within that timeframe - has the defendant got grounds to have the case thrown out of court?

partyguinness

If the case has been set down for hearing then there is nothing more to lodge and turn up on the day.

borderlinemeath

No, maybe I wasn't clear.

A civil case has been ongoing, no hearing date set. It has been up in front of the master of the court several times for discussion and at the last discussion a timeframe was set by the master of the court for the case to be set down and a hearing date decided.

This date has passed and no hearing date has been lodged. Has the defendant got the right to demand that the case be thrown out? (the master of the court at one point actually stated that he viewed the case as a waste of everybodys time and money)

partyguinness

Not sure why you are not just asking your legal advsors.

Yes, the defendant can apply to have the case struck out which may or may be granted.

borderlinemeath

partyguinness wrote: »

Not sure why you are not just asking your legal advsors.

Yes, the defendant can apply to have the case struck out which may or may be granted.

Not my case but a family member. They are representing themselves.

ResearchWill

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Not my case but a family member. They are representing themselves.

As they have decided to deal with the matter themselves they will of course know what todo now.

borderlinemeath

ResearchWill wrote: »

As they have decided to deal with the matter themselves they will of course know what todo now.

They haven't really got much know how at all, bar some direction from the master of the court and a few meetings with their solicitor.

It's bewildering how the plaintiffs have managed to get as far as they have as they have lied to their solicitor, who have in turn pumped them up to believe that they have a chance to get a big payout. Even in the discovery paperwork the truth is actually there in 3 separate statements,(medicals) but in the final statement the lies have come in. tbh I don't think the plaintiffs solicitors even read the discovery documents that they handed over to my family member, if they did I really don't think they would take the case as the overwhelming evidence in the plaintiffs own earlier statements completely exonerate the defendant.

borderlinemeath

borderlinemeath wrote: »

They haven't really got much know how at all, bar some direction from the master of the court and a few meetings with their solicitor.

It's bewildering how the plaintiffs have managed to get as far as they have as they have lied to their solicitor, who have in turn pumped them up to believe that they have a chance to get a big payout. Even in the discovery paperwork the truth is actually there in 3 separate statements,(medicals) but in the final statement the lies have come in. tbh I don't think the plaintiffs solicitors even read the discovery documents that they handed over to my family member, if they did I really don't think they would take the case as the overwhelming evidence in the plaintiffs own earlier statements completely exonerate the defendant.

A couple of things:

1. You have said "Master of the Court" a few times. Do you mean the Master of the High Court? If so he has no power to issue deadlines on a case being set down. If you mean the presiding judge in the list then there are other issues that arise but you would be better off speaking to your legal representatives about those.

2. Just because you think you have a cast iron case and think that the medicals unequivocally exonerate the defendant doesn't mean that you are right. Unqualified expressions of certainty don't rear their head often in legal conversations for extremely good reason.

3. Don't seek anymore legal advice on the Internet, as a general rule it is bad advice as you can never give enough information to get a good answer and nobody whose opinion you'd actually want would give it to you under those circumstances. FLAC is a much better idea.

Best of luck.

borderlinemeath

Deleted User wrote: »

A couple of things:

1. You have said "Master of the Court" a few times. Do you mean the Master of the High Court? If so he has no power to issue deadlines on a case being set down. If you mean the presiding judge in the list then there are other issues that arise but you would be better off speaking to your legal representatives about those.

2. Just because you think you have a cast iron case and think that the medicals unequivocally exonerate the defendant doesn't mean that you are right. Unqualified expressions of certainty don't rear their head often in legal conversations for extremely good reason.

3. Don't seek anymore legal advice on the Internet, as a general rule it is bad advice as you can never give enough information to get a good answer and nobody whose opinion you'd actually want would give it to you under those circumstances. FLAC is a much better idea.

Best of luck.

Yes, the presiding judge.
Not looking for legal advice, I know that any case can go either way on the day.
It's been a set up from the get go, and to be honest putting the plaintiffs on the stand would be like putting Del Boy and Rodney up and asking them to swear that the goods didn't fall off the back of a lorry:D

Or to be more accurate when Uncle Albert fell down the manhole and was shown up to be a serial 'accidentalist'