On 27 Oct, 19:08, "\(not quite so\) Fat Sam"
 wrote:
> Theo_Deli...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > On 27 Oct, 12:36, "The Todal"  wrote:
> >> "pete"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:trn4i3dlkibj5fr4t4apla02klmjq0ee9q@4ax.com...
>
> >>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 10:20:39 +0100, PJK 
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> Having looked at your claim and their skeleton argument on your
> >>>> blog I think at least part of your problem was that your claim
> >>>> (particularly paras 5 and 8) make reference to accessing Orwell
> >>>> Country Park.  It is not clear from your claim that there are
> >>>> different areas which you had a specific need or desire to access.
> >>>> If there is reasonable alternative access to the park I don't
> >>>> think it would be possible to describe the judgement as perverse.
> >>>> FWIW I think you have little chance of a successful appeal.
>
> >>> I see what you mean. The problem then is not a perverse judgement
> >>> but a badly drafted claim. If I appeal can I re-draft the claim?
>
> >> I'm no expert on appeals. The rules are at Part 52 of the CPR and my
> >> interpretation of them is that ordinarily the circuit judge hearing
> >> your appeal will not allow you to present your case again from
> >> scratch, but will merely consider whether the district judge
> >> misdirected himself on the basis of the evidence he heard. I suppose
> >> he might allow you to present new evidence if he thought that as a
> >> litigant in person you were under a disadvantage, but I wouldn't
> >> bank on it. So your prospects of success aren't high.
>
> >> Note also rule 52.10 (6) where it says "the court must at the same
> >> time consider whether it is appropriate to make a civil restraint
> >> order" if the appeal is considered to be totally without merit.
> >> Obviously that is something you must avoid.  In general, courts are
> >> not at all impressed by litigants who say "I know my case wasn't
> >> strong but I felt very strongly about the principle of the thing".
> >> That might sound good to a journalist, but to a judge it suggests
> >> someone who will continue suing everybody until he is stopped. And I
> >> say this without in any way criticising you for pursuing your case.
>
> >> I think it might be best to retire from battle on this particular
> >> issue and see if you can get your opponent to waive the costs award.
>
> > Are you sure that is quite wise?
>
> Definitely not a wise decision.
> While it's costing him a grand each time, I feel he should be encouraged to
> keep yapping at IBC's heels like a small ill-trained dog.

Unfortunately, unlike "a small, ill-trained dog", he cannot lawfully
be euthenised.

--
 x   If he could be, should it be painless?
/|\