Wednesday, 5 October 2016

Legal Charge £190,390 - Court hearing


Update 25th November; The hearing will now be on Friday 2nd December

Update 20th October; The hearing has been brought forward to 1st December 2016

Update 8th October; The hearing is listed for Thursday 8th December 2016 at 10am in Carmarthen.

* * *

I have been informed by Carmarthen District Registry of the High Court that there will be a brief hearing (approx 30 mins) to decide whether to make the Interim Charging Order on my home, for legal costs of £190,390, final.
I had requested a hearing within my written objection to the Charge and I will be asking, at the hearing, for the Charge to be thrown out.
A date has not been given yet but I'm told it will be in a few week's time.

This enforcement action was brought, ostensibly, by the current Plaid Cymru/Independent Executive Board but I notice that Mark James is still a party to the proceedings. He already has a charge for his damages, sent in the bailiffs and summoned me to court to answer questions. Although he seems to be living up to his promise to use 'all legal means possible' to get his hands on the damages, there has been no enforcement, as yet, concerning his illegal counterclaim costs.

I'll not elaborate further, I've already made my views, and promises, and my financial circumstances very clear on all this.
However, I would like to repeat that the 'criminal' findings of Justice Tugendhat which led to my insurance being revoked and left me liable for these costs have now completely failed the evidential test after a five month police investigation.

As for the Police Information Notice, or 'harassment warning',  I have now made it clear to Dyfed Powys Police that I require it to be revoked. If this is not forthcoming, then the only option available to me is to apply for a Judicial Review.


See previous posts; Police complaints logged,  
Challenging the police harassment warning 
and The police visit Caebrwyn 

5 comments:

Martin Milan said...

I am, as you know, not a lawyer - but I would be surprised if they can put a charge at anywhere near the value of your home in place, as I presume you own your home jointly with your husband. You know what I think of the court's decision on your case, but I can't see how your husband can be financially punished for your case. Should his half of the property not be protected?

As for the righteousness of your case, I'm right behind you Jacqui - but this hearing will not be held along those lines. It won't have the power to revisit the orginal decision, and I would expect it to be very much a case of "how do we protected the council's claim to this lump of funds".

I think the application of the charge is almost guaranteed unfortunately... The only way out of it would be for the council to suddenly develop a sense of honour and justice, and, frankly, I wouldn't be holding my breath...

The conduct of Plaid in this has been utterly disgusting. I hope their conduct at this local level cannot serve as an indication of how they would behave at a national level should they come to power...

caebrwyn said...

@Martin
Yes you are right these hearings do not revisit original decisions and getting something like this thrown out is difficult, though I will at least have the opportunity to put my case, in person, on record.
As it is jointly owned, there is some protection to my husband's half, but only to a degree - he had no choice in the interim charge being applied and should the council, or Mr James, go further and decide to try and force sale, he would be a co-defendant. Should the charge be made final it is likely to be entered on the Land Registry as a legal restriction.
Whatever happens, I will continue to resist all attempts at recovery, of both the costs and the damages.

Anonymous said...

This is an interesting concept.

The legal charge would remain in force on the property until such time that the property is sold or the debt settled. Therefore, in the event mark james outliving you and your property becomes part of your estate then he would be entitled to draw the debt.

But, that poses the question of WHO is entitled to the debt.

Is the plaintiff james or the council?

If its the former, then in what format? You could hold out until he leaves office and hope thats the end of the matter as I understand it relates to events which occurred whilst he represented the council and would potentially cease to be effective on his departure.

If its the council, then all you need to do is stay in the property indefinitely.

Whichever way it pans out its a dreadful situation to be in and speaks more about the council and particularly mark james. He must be so proud of himself, using tax payers money to sue another tax payer for his own gratification and benefit. There's a word for people like that but I doubt you'd print it!

Tim Hart said...

This whole saga has been a gross injustice, from the high court 'libel' decisions, to the unlawful behaviour of the County Council regarding the funding of costs; together with their administrative blunderings and the dubious use of the police to lever civil proceedings. The courts will compound this injustice if they consent to forfeiture of the family home, or any other personal assets. Such inappropriate and draconian use of the law should never have been permitted by the judiciary. It has served to create a chilling effect on democracy by sending a warning to other citizens who might have the temerity to criticise their elected representatives, or the paid officials. One can only hope that the courage displayed by Jacquie Thompson in the face of such an onslaught will help to mitigate the worst of any such damaging effects.

Jennifer Brown said...

The leadership of our council has a hatred of criticism of their various (not above board) actions which harm the public interest. Until the Herald came on the scene bloggers were keeping us updated and no doubt the safest one of these to make an example of was Jacqui. They used the same tactic of demonising her as they use on the whistleblower and complainant. The unflattering reputations they concoct for dissenters/critics poisons the minds of anyone they are likely to be in contact with. From what I can tell it's not only Mark James who has been responsible for what has befallen Jacqui but the Executive who persuaded him to counter claim at their (sorry our) expense. We can see the injustice of what has taken place and can also see it was carried out to frighten other bloggers into curtailing their criticism; it has not worked only proved to the public (at least those interested in knowing the truth and in the need to be able to hold our public bodies to account)the depth our CCC will stoop to punish anyone who speaks out, whether bloggers, complainants or employees (whistleblowers), in the public interest. The CCC has certainly not enhanced its reputation. I always thought if an unlawful act was used to set in motion a train of events which allowed those who carried it out to benefit it would null and void any ensuing action they took to Court. CCC not accepting what they did was unlawful should not be any protection against the law re-examining their actions and holding them to account. Until the police and CPS start using Misconduct in Public Office against our, seemingly, unaccountable public servants when they abuse their positions for their own benefit the public interest will never be protected. I admire the stand Jacqui has taken and pleased to see the support she has had from other bloggers and the public. All I hope is the hole that the CCC is digging for itself will collapse in on itself and up will sprout a fresh and more decent CCC whose officers and Cllrs will put the public interest before their own. Out with cover up, denial, bullying, coercion & spin; in with openness, transparency, admitting to their mistakes and learning lessons from them and instead of acting against anyone who has concerns and speaks out they actually give them a fair hearing. Jacqui Good Luck!