Thursday, 26 June 2014

It's a lie, it's a lie, it's a lie, it's a lie... it's a sin....

I think the absolute liability part was something to stop even in ECHR's just saying!

Anyway the case seems to have been written up after the event by a few firms...

So when does a lie become the truth? Here is the truth with evidence to prove this fact;

In was stated in Judgment at the Civil Appeal Hearing that MJVFF had asked for an implied repairing covenant when she had asked for no such thing she had asked for an implied covenant that the landlord should not breach the terms of the insurance 5(22) not withstanding she was in contract insured already and contract was simply breached by the landlord making her uninsured.

Email from Ms Flores (formerly Gavin) litigant in person to Bircham Dyson Bell legal team for the landlord 23rd July 2013

Extract from email;

Sent from Ms Flores

“I wonder if you could tell me whether you recall me advocating two things. 1. That absolute liability was catered for as I was insured for repairs at all times and 2. That I asked for an implied obligation to 5(22) that the landlord could not (like myself) breach the insurance?”

29th July 2013 Reply from Bircham Dyson Bell

In response to your questions, I can confirm that you argued the two points you mention below.  The transcript of the hearing will reflect this. 

However, I should point out that these two points did not necessarily fall within the scope of the grounds for which permission to appeal was granted on 4 December 2012, particularly your point about an implied covenant based on clause 5(22) of the lease.  

30th July 2013 Reply from Ms Flores

Thanks you for your response and for kindly confirming that these were my two points argued.

Just to add that the clause 5(22) related to a repairing obligation under a different construction.

Therefore it falls within the grounds that were accepted for implied obligations to repair.

What kind of legal history are we making when all are prepared to lie even when faced with truth?