Ruff justice: claim by dogs muzzled
Discussion
An enterprising attempt by two pooches to sue a bank for megabucks has been kennelled by a Judge.
"Miss Wilmot-Smith also makes the obvious point that dogs are not capable of bringing legal proceedings. Among other things, CPR Part 2.3(1) defines “claimant” as a person who makes a claim, and a dog is not a person. I also cannot see how a dog could give instructions for a claim to be brought on its behalf or be liable for any orders made against it. There are a whole host of other reasons why proceedings by dogs must be void, and accordingly I am satisfied that in so far as the claim purports to be made on behalf of the two dogs it should also be struck out."
http://www.legalcheek.com/2015/11/dogs-legal-actio...
"Miss Wilmot-Smith also makes the obvious point that dogs are not capable of bringing legal proceedings. Among other things, CPR Part 2.3(1) defines “claimant” as a person who makes a claim, and a dog is not a person. I also cannot see how a dog could give instructions for a claim to be brought on its behalf or be liable for any orders made against it. There are a whole host of other reasons why proceedings by dogs must be void, and accordingly I am satisfied that in so far as the claim purports to be made on behalf of the two dogs it should also be struck out."
http://www.legalcheek.com/2015/11/dogs-legal-actio...
Breadvan72 said:
An enterprising attempt by two pooches to sue a bank for megabucks has been kennelled by a Judge.
"Miss Wilmot-Smith also makes the obvious point that dogs are not capable of bringing legal proceedings. Among other things, CPR Part 2.3(1) defines “claimant” as a person who makes a claim, and a dog is not a person. I also cannot see how a dog could give instructions for a claim to be brought on its behalf or be liable for any orders made against it. There are a whole host of other reasons why proceedings by dogs must be void, and accordingly I am satisfied that in so far as the claim purports to be made on behalf of the two dogs it should also be struck out."
http://www.legalcheek.com/2015/11/dogs-legal-actio...
I believe a chimp sued someone for something, naturally in America."Miss Wilmot-Smith also makes the obvious point that dogs are not capable of bringing legal proceedings. Among other things, CPR Part 2.3(1) defines “claimant” as a person who makes a claim, and a dog is not a person. I also cannot see how a dog could give instructions for a claim to be brought on its behalf or be liable for any orders made against it. There are a whole host of other reasons why proceedings by dogs must be void, and accordingly I am satisfied that in so far as the claim purports to be made on behalf of the two dogs it should also be struck out."
http://www.legalcheek.com/2015/11/dogs-legal-actio...
This case, predictably, ruff justice etc.
Rude-boy said:
Paw quality website.
No mention of the value of the Property repossessed nor are they any Facetwit obtained photos of the parties.
This might be she.No mention of the value of the Property repossessed nor are they any Facetwit obtained photos of the parties.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaeLEwKOZNA
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff