 The Mediation Agreement was entered into, and signed, in the
evening of 24th November 1999 and it was made the following day. It was drawn on 8th December 1999 and posted
second class. The document, scanned and reproduced below, did not include all of the
agreed terms. Its content was limited to the essential
elements establishing settlement and that method of payment had also been agreed between
the parties.
 the consent Order - succinct and
clear
The Order clearly qualified that it covered all three claims against the various parties / partners who
contracted with us. All three claims - court case numbers - were succinctly specified, as
had been requested by the LAG officer who assisted me in the evening of 24th November
1999.
The Order was also clearly endorsed with the explicit undertaking by the solicitor partner, who
attended the mediation hearing as partner and solicitor for the partnership / partners, to
remit a solicitor's client account cheque in full settlement by 4 p.m. on 2nd December
1999. This last element was clearly understood by the solicitor who attended in the
capacities stated above. The solicitor had undertaken to
remit to us directly the agreed amount by the specified date and time. See closing line of
the first paragraph of the Order.
The Order also specified
where the solicitor was to forward the cheque that should be as good as a banker's draft,
in the words of the Mediation officer who clarified all issues raised at the conclusion of
the Mediation.
All three elements were/are very clearly defined in the
Court Judgement / Consent Order.
" We got news for you, friend;
we still wish to play at theatre!". An indirect yet as blunt as the message
could be!
Settlement and commitments confirmed in the
Court Order would have anyone believe that it was the end of the matter. Not So. The
second Court Order dated as Drawn on 14th December 1999, was sent first class post by the
court. The scanned images as reproduced below clarify the point.
 2nd Order and envelope, sent by
First Class Post.
The document qualifies that the Order was made on 4th November 1999. I state in these pages
the causes and reasons that led me to apply for the Mediation Service provided by the
court. The content of the second Order, as received, qualifies
much and raised many questions least of all: "Why the second Order was drawn on 14th and posted on 17th December 1999, first
class?"
One only has to consider the fact that the professional who
attended the Mediation negotiations conveniently failed to meet the deadline and did not
remit the cheque he had undertaken to cause to be delivered to us!
Are you getting warm, friends?
Just consider the simple fact
that no settlement had been contemplated or effected as agreed. However, well over
two weeks later, two Court Orders arrive instead of one!
Then consider that the second Order was sent first class
almost one week after the first, the Consent Order and both arrived within a day of one
another!
Above all consider the simple fact
that the Consent Order was clearly endorsed with the case - claim - number for which the
complications and theatrical/technical scenario was contemplated because of introductions of alleged breaches
on our part months after conclusion of the works.
Now consider the following, even
simpler fact! In the days of computer aided record keeping and data updates can anyone justify and excuse failure to include copies of
the Consent Order as posted on the 8th of December to us in all three - claims - case
files? And what of the same input in the data records for all three claims - cases!
Would you accept that
clerical staff employed in our courts are of such low standard of education and
understanding of the English language?
Would you accept any excuses
that Court Managers and or senior clerical staff are incapable of putting in place common
sense directives, such as above pointed to, that could not possibly have resulted in the
'introduction, issue and posting of the second court Order?
The above
are just an introduction. There is more to come!
In view
of the above it was considered proper to contact the LAG and seek assistance to
unravel the miracle of the Second Order. Even more miraculous was the default by the
solicitor to make good his personal undertaking and to meet the Court's directive as
endorsed in the Consent Order.
Access also the
Consent Order Page |
