Enjoying the journey Alex, as part of the cause of action. If a party is required to have legal title would evidence of this be part of the cause of action? My thoughts are, even if a party brings a claim under a certain legislation but maybe acting as a party that has acquired legal assignment, until that’s evidenced they wouldn’t have a right to being said cause of action because putting it bluntly, what does it have to do with them is what I would be asking?
Not a lawyer, but my guess is that the party that claims to have a cause of action needs to meet at least the prima facie standard that they have a cause of action. Whether or not the party has the legal title to have a cause of action may be in dispute - this might be the only issue that the litigants want the court to rule on, but to have a cause of action there has to be some evidence that there is a cause of action. The nature of the evidence available might determine the nature of the case - the evidence might be a Will that is in dispute, it might be unclearly written conveyancing clause, or it might be a fraud. Confirming what evidence is in dispute, where this determines whether there is a cause of action or not, seems to require the evidence to be provided, to the degree that the court can see, prima facie, that there is a cause of action.
Hello Alex. I remember you used to do some online advice sessions every two weeks to promote your book 'fly solo' . These sessions were great. I wonder if these are still taking place? Best Wishes, M
I like your videos, please post more
Watching all your videos. very good much appreciated. Jim. liked and subscribed
Great analogy
Unfair relationship thank you !!!!!
Enjoying the journey Alex, as part of the cause of action. If a party is required to have legal title would evidence of this be part of the cause of action? My thoughts are, even if a party brings a claim under a certain legislation but maybe acting as a party that has acquired legal assignment, until that’s evidenced they wouldn’t have a right to being said cause of action because putting it bluntly, what does it have to do with them is what I would be asking?
Not a lawyer, but my guess is that the party that claims to have a cause of action needs to meet at least the prima facie standard that they have a cause of action. Whether or not the party has the legal title to have a cause of action may be in dispute - this might be the only issue that the litigants want the court to rule on, but to have a cause of action there has to be some evidence that there is a cause of action. The nature of the evidence available might determine the nature of the case - the evidence might be a Will that is in dispute, it might be unclearly written conveyancing clause, or it might be a fraud. Confirming what evidence is in dispute, where this determines whether there is a cause of action or not, seems to require the evidence to be provided, to the degree that the court can see, prima facie, that there is a cause of action.
Hello Alex. I remember you used to do some online advice sessions every two weeks to promote your book 'fly solo' . These sessions were great. I wonder if these are still taking place? Best Wishes, M
Unfortunately not anymore.
Is a Tolata claim too complex for a litigant in person?