Court Video Link Dispute

Ask Your Question For Free

Summary

The conversation revolves around a legal dispute where the speaker discusses testing a live video link for a court case, which the judge hadnt permitted. The speaker requested the link under the Open Justice principle, emphasizing public access to legal proceedings through modern technology. The case involves a summons, its legalities, costs, and reasonableness, referencing the Nicholson judgment. The speaker argues that if costs are unreasonable, the liability order cannot be awarded. They also discuss the difference between a demand notice and a bill, citing the Ashby vs White case, which states Parliament cannot change the law or control private property rights. The speaker requested a written judgment, noting that being correct on one point is sufficient to win. They assert that the judge not having the cost before the court means theyve already won on that point alone. Regardless of the judges decision, they consider it a stride forward as theyll receive a written judgment, allowing for potential appeal if errors of law or misunderstandings are found.

Full Conversation

more
they have made a stride forward as they will receive a written judgment. This would allow them to understand the judge's rationale and potentially appeal the decision if it contains errors of law or misunderstandings.
emphasize: The main legal points in the text are: *. The speaker tested a live video link for a court case but the judge hadn't given permission for the link to be dispatched or emailed. The speaker requested a live link under the Open Justice principle. *. There was a discussion about public access to legal proceedings and the use of modern technology to facilitate this. *. The court case involved a summons, the legalities of the summons, the costs and the reasonableness associated with it. *. The speaker referred to the Nicholson judgment and mentioned that if the cost is not reasonable, the liability order cannot be awarded. *. The speaker also brought up the issue of demand notice versus the bill, arguing that they are not interchangeable. *. The speaker referred to Ashby versus White case and mentioned that Parliament cannot change the law or control private property rights. *. The speaker requested a written judgment from the judge, noting that they only need to be correct on one point to win the case. *. It's also mentioned that the judge did not have the cost before the court and therefore, in accordance with the Nicholson judgment, the speaker argued that they have already won on that point alone. *. Finally, the speaker indicated that irrespective of the judge's decision,
they have made a stride forward as they will receive a written judgment. This would allow them to understand the judge's rationale and potentially appeal the decision if it contains errors of law or misunderstandings.
Elaborate on all text in this chat
This conversation seems to involve a legal dispute, where the speaker discusses a court case. The key legal points include:
*. Request for a live video link under the Open Justice principle.
*. Public access to legal proceedings through modern technology.
*. The case involves a summons, its legalities, costs and reasonableness.
*. Reference to the Nicholson judgment, stating if costs are not reasonable, the liability order cannot be awarded.
*. Discussion on the difference between a demand notice and a bill.
*. Reference to the Ashby vs White case stating Parliament cannot change the law or control private property rights.
*. Request for a written judgment, highlighting the need to be correct on only one point to win.
*. Mention of the judge not having the cost before the court. In accordance with the Nicholson judgment, the speaker asserts they've already won on that point alone.
*. Regardless of the judge's decision, they consider it a stride forward as they'll receive a written judgment allowing potential appeal if errors of law or misunderstandings are found.