I have not
heard from you about any possible date for a conference in the short amount of
time left?
From
To
Dear Kerry,
On the relevant points;
3. spaceshift... was the only joint lease. You say the appellant's
for Scarlet Maguire which was mine alone.
3. Scarlet Maguire was a six years lease, you only mention the
'rent' review date within that lease.
4. You state the second lease of spaceshift... 106-108 Cromer
Street as commencing on March 17th 2005 when that was a subsequent lease to the
original lease of two years commencing 4th April 2004.
6. You misrepresent the facts regarding the break-ins and do not
state there were two trespasses. Further injunction to re-enter and remain
[Appeal Bundle 147-150] not made clear with the Judge stating speed was
essential.
7. POC 4th Dec 08 [AB156-169] what is the settled by counsel
comment about? Again not clear simplified. Application to ammend the POC was
allowed in part.. well no it wasn't it was absolutely rejected, the schedules
were accepted as a simple table of the original POC and additionally the
children's project I ran was seen as an integral part of the losses in
opportunity, that was all.
8. Writing that there were two judgements appeal bundles again
referred to as is all of this document with not one reference to the 5 boxes of
files that took two months to go through, one would have thought an original
reference would be made apart from the Judges and the new grounds of appeal
bundle made up by Jan. Staying on that point no points made about the costs
hearing being done midst the two judgements and when I was ill so could not
represent us and applied for it to be adjourned so it was actually unfair with
none of our costs or quantum ever discussed ever. The old grounds.
9. [AB17-20??] Lodged appeal based upon her ('old') grounds. No
stating what they were in the and since the skeleton's I & II are neither
in the Appeal Bundle Jan made up nor in the case files I will attach them, they
are very thorough. They are also the very documents that were refused
permission on so really should be referred to or they will be lost forever as
if they never formed part of the permission to appeal. Also it is not stated
the delay in getting the transcripts of two years. Also it is not stated the
permission was refused based on the solicitors notes which we requested two
years earlier under our right to have them under the Civil Procedure Rules
hence two years delay unwarranted adding to losses. Some patronizing garbled
message re the benefits of pro-bono from two Judges but no mention of my good
representation and my legal 'LAW' paper for the oral hearing (after we got some
of the real transcripts to see which laws had been used against us) that I had
assistance with from a top QC and a voluntary organization charity so too was
quite through, I should attach that too as perhaps you haven't seen that
either? Since you only refer to Jan's bundle and my need of pro-bono. Not
objective representation of fact. Again pushing the mediation line. Shut her up
get her out she may have an actual case but we don't want all the facts
anymore. Give us a legal rep we can actually deal with who knows the game and
how the courts bargain.
10. Amended grounds of appeal. Kept good but vague so even I did
not know ventilation wasn't in there, I still think there is scope in wording
of grounds 1 & 2. Flooding only news to me yesterday. Please see skeleton I
page 15 as my case or 'old' grounds still stand and skeleton II page 1. on
caveat lessee not applicable if involves deceit, think you'll find that that is
LAW.
12. Mention of getting rid of all old grounds but in hearing we
asked that this be left open so it still is, unless you assume I agree with
this initial consultation? With no redress to correct a bit. Anyone can make
basic mistakes, granted, but I won't accept them, too granted and reasonable I
think you'll find.
16. Covenant to keep a premises in repair is at 'all' times not
when 'notice' is given, if they can see the defect..
18. Excellent point - No notice required.
19. Erred in Law [AB47-49] misled on Clerk & Lindsell, on
tort, 19th edition, refers to obligation arising ONLY on proof of negligence,
paragraph, he didn't appreciate, not considering 'contractual obligations' NOR
was it a chapter on nuisance!! ha ha!! Very good. Took chapter out of context
didn't consider relevant authorities on point. Pipe's/electricity room leaks
60% good.
20. Damage/waste stack [AB42] + para 8 Judgement + Electricity
room para 54 Judgement if 1st grounds succeed then all will..[AB61] of the
amended grounds only so need to add in others I feel.
21. I must appeal you suggest against Caveat Lessee, think you'll
find I did and always did since defendant's response all those years ago. Think
there is still scope to do so as Jan said other grounds in court and Judge said
okay. Again see skeleton II page 1. We'll also need the original letter
requesting the lease and the 'bygones be bygones' bit at the end, one of the
three doc's I always refer to. Also Chris Natt's transcript or our notes will
do in the submissions on liability as to what he said in evidence and how I
accused him of deceit from day 1. He knew he was letting a tumbled down house
and let us throw thousands into it in the knowledge it was unworkable. Also the
HAPM and theft letter are good for this appeal on the caveat lessee so yes good
suggestion with regards to ventilation I think although that is not the same
point/
22. "Subject to the uses which the parties have
contemplated" (could be used for mis-selling A3 planning too as in
requirements for air in A3 usage), if it is true that neither has done or asks
to do anything which was not contemplated by both, neither can have any right
against the other! Love that... "asks" - comes back to opening letter
to request the premises and standards... it's all there. Many barrister's have
seen it and I have used it throughout and will still use it to the end, if that
is okay with you too.
23. Mainly wondering if the point on failure to claim on the
insurance is sadly being missed?!!! Negligence 'amend' but it's in the POC?
27. Entirely appropriate point to mention! Yes Caveat Lessee
again... Say's no appeal in front of the court on these items... that can't be
right.. grounds 1 & 2 and other grounds yet to be added can cover that as
long as we have the legal merit on the points and they would not be in the
claim if they were to then be ignored by simply using para 44 of what the Judge
said. See Skeleton i page 15 & 16 on flooding.
Also see page 20 skeleton I.
The air or lack of is not caveat emptor it is deceit and continues
to be for a new tenant as advertised and it is a breach of building regulations
in a building converted by less than 7 years in 2004.
Just to help you with the final doc. Many Thanks. Look forward to
hearing from you.
Mary Josofar Valdivieso Fortuno Flores AKA MARY MOSS, Jo Gavin
& Jo Flores.
spaceshift...
in
association with Scarlet Maguire Gallery
104-108
Cromer Street
London
WC1H 8BZ
UK
tel: 00
44 (0) 20 7837 6680
mob: 07916 325037
mob: 07916 325037
From
To
Dear Kerry,
Thank you for your early reply. I will do that.
Best
Mary
Thank you for your early reply. I will do that.
Best
Mary
spaceshift...
in
association with Scarlet Maguire Gallery
104-108
Cromer Street
London
WC1H 8BZ
UK
tel: 00
44 (0) 20 7837 6680
mob: 07916 325037
mob: 07916 325037
From: Kerry Bretherton
<KerryBretherton@tanfieldchambers.co.uk>
To: Scarlet Maguire Gallery <scarletmaguire@yahoo.com>; Joanne Meah <jmeah@tanfieldchambers.co.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 8:34
Subject: Bar Pro Bono case
To: Scarlet Maguire Gallery <scarletmaguire@yahoo.com>; Joanne Meah <jmeah@tanfieldchambers.co.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 8:34
Subject: Bar Pro Bono case
Dear Mary,
Thank you for your email. As mentioned
previously I am extremely busy this week.
I suggest that we have a conference at my
chambers either on Tuesday or Wednesday next week. Could you please liase
with my clerk Jo to book that in.
Jo please can you make sure a pupil is
free to attend the conference and book it around this if necessary.
Kind regards
Kerry Bretherton
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment