Posted by alexandra_k on August 18, 2021, at 20:35:13
In reply to Re: fletcher building, posted by alexandra_k on August 18, 2021, at 20:30:21
currently i have a case with the court of appeal that goes like this:
i file a statement of claim.
they file an application to have the claim struck out.
the court says that the claim will not be struck out.
the court says that the claim will not be struck out but that the application to have the claim struck out was substantively or substantially correct and therefore i am to pay the legal costs involved in the other party having filed the application to have the claim struck out.so it seems the courts of new zealand cannot or will not find substantively or substantially in favor of a self respresented applicant or litigant (say one who has not gone to law school).
same with university of auckland.
i file claiming they are not entitled to have declined my application on grounds of 'ineligibility'.
court finds that i am technically correct that they are not entitled to have declined my application on grounds of 'ineligibility'.
but that is only 'technically correct' and the substantive correctness is sthe university therefore i pay all their costs.that is to say nzl has shown no indication of being rule of law or rule by law.
they don't appear to know what it means to be substantively correct and / or they refuse to award costs (at the very very very very least -- forget about meaningful compensation)... they just won't do it.
nada.
zip.
zilch.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:1116484
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20210526/msgs/1116486.html