1. At the previous hearing in 2013, Judge Cohen had asked the question about proving the ownership of the vechile, Judge Cohen made the ruling, I was allowed to prove that the vechile was not owned by myself. The ownership of the car was in dispute, as there was an inter-pleader/Intervener in this case, namely Johanna Guaglianone and Judge Cohen was aware of this. I have requested the transcript of the first hearing from the Court.
2. The Judge did not read the case, as he complained that he had only got the evidence of ownership of the car and witness statement that morning, in fact they were sent by email and post 3 weeks before this Hearing. He then declared that there was a printing issue with Court printer on the witness statements. The Judge looked at this as a straightforward Sale of Goods Act, when it is not, there is a Third Party involved in this case, whom is Johanna Guaglianone, the Interpleader/Intervener in this case. Her position in this case and her position at the hearing was overlooked and ignored completely. Error in procedure, he had not read or become acquitted with the case and its witnesses.
3. Why the Judge granted the Claimants request for CPR24 and CPR 3.4 when he had not read the case or considered all the evidence provided that the car is not my car, thus denying the rights of a Interpleader which the car belongs to testify to this fact.
4. The Judge did not refer to the main aspect of this case, the owner of the vehicle in question, this being the witness and inter-pleader/intervener, Johanna Guaglianone who was not allowed to speak. At the previous hearing in 2013 (point 1), Judge Cohen had asked the question about proving the ownership of the vechile, Judge Cohen’s ruled, that, I was allowed to prove that the vechile was not owned by myself. The ownership of the car was in dispute, as there was an inter-pleader/Intervener in this case.
5. Both my witness statement and the inter-pleader's witness statement were not read by the Judge. The Claimant had tried to Strike Out both statements during the process. and before the Hearing. The Claimant had responded that both Witness Statement's did not contain a Statement of Truth and Johanna Guaglianone’s witness statement was unsigned, this error was corrected a week before the Hearing and The Court agreed this was a clerical error and would not affect the hearing. therefore the witness statements were not Struck Out.
6. The Judges terse attitude to myself & my witness. I was informed by the Ministry of Justice, before the hearing, that the hearing was to be defined as an amicable negotiation, where all parties could discuss the issues & my witness must be heard. My Witness asked the Judge if she could speak, a curt No was replied by the Judge, the Judge called my case ‘fanciful’ which both myself and my witness found extremely offensive. The decision was made without considering the full facts.
7. The Judge seemed to have no interest in listening to my case and put both myself and my witness very ill at ease and yet the complete opposite was allowed to the Claimant, whose solicitor spoke freely and was given a free rein to speak for some 30 minutes, mostly about time spent on the case and various unsubstantiated phone conversations and wrongful accusations and deformation of character, without any foundation.
8. The car was registered in a firm’s name, the firm is a fashion company and holds my name on the fashion label G.GUAGLIANONE as I was the designer at the time the business was started, I no longer work for the Partnership, but as in fashion labels it still holds my name, which the Claimant tried to mislead this fact. I include documents to testify to this.
9. The Claimant made incorrect and misleading accusations that the car was in a personal name ie Gianni Guaglianone, when in-fact the car has never been in my personal name, it was in a partnership consisting of G and J Guaglianone, transferred in 2012 to J Guaglianone as a sole trader., who holds full title to the vechile.
10. The Judge never questioned or scrutinised the Claimant on they’re accusations about me or the vechile or questioned me as to the ownership of the vechile and the right of the interpleader/intervener in this case at the Hearing.
11. Due to my changed financial circumstances I am asking the Court to allow me to repay the rest of my loan owed to The Claimant, but my agreement with them cannot intrude and affect another individual , who is the sole owner of this vechile, Johanna Guaglianone. This point seems to have been ignored or overlooked by the Judge, thus an unreasonable decision over another person’s legal and rightful possession .
12. I rely on the transcript, of which we have requested from the court, to show that the Judge did not allow me to put my case or for my witness to speak at the Hearing.
13.As I had no legal representative, I feel the case should be reheard with my own representative as to points of law.