Tweet
Hi
Following an earlier adjourned trial hearing, I emailed the court pointing out the CVP problems prior to the adjournment
and that I had not received a witness statement or a copied e-bundle from the claimant.
Since then, I received a new hearing date for 11th March, this time via Microsoft Teams, ordered to be arranged by the claimant.
The order states the trial is part heard.
There is no reference to my missing some of the first hearing, i.e. no transcript or recording.
The order states that the claimant is to notify all parties including the court of the MT link and to provide a bundle, physical if necessary, to all parties.
The order goes on to say the claimant is to email an e-bundle to the court (but no reference to myself).
Any views as to:
1. No further direction for the claimant to provide a witness statement, ordered, but not complied with in the first trial hearing).
2. No further direction for the claimant to email me an e-bundle, ordered, but not complied with in the first trial hearing
(would be easier than sending me a physical bundle given that there are around 100+ pages).
3. The claimant ordered to arrange the MT link - is this usual - why doesn't the court arrange the link as with CVP?
4. The judge obviously has no idea what I missed of the first hearing
- took him a long time to realise I was having problems while the claimant continued to present his case.
Should I email the court & point out these deficiencies again now or leave commenting until the next trial hearing?
TIA
Following an earlier adjourned trial hearing, I emailed the court pointing out the CVP problems prior to the adjournment
and that I had not received a witness statement or a copied e-bundle from the claimant.
Since then, I received a new hearing date for 11th March, this time via Microsoft Teams, ordered to be arranged by the claimant.
The order states the trial is part heard.
There is no reference to my missing some of the first hearing, i.e. no transcript or recording.
The order states that the claimant is to notify all parties including the court of the MT link and to provide a bundle, physical if necessary, to all parties.
The order goes on to say the claimant is to email an e-bundle to the court (but no reference to myself).
Any views as to:
1. No further direction for the claimant to provide a witness statement, ordered, but not complied with in the first trial hearing).
2. No further direction for the claimant to email me an e-bundle, ordered, but not complied with in the first trial hearing
(would be easier than sending me a physical bundle given that there are around 100+ pages).
3. The claimant ordered to arrange the MT link - is this usual - why doesn't the court arrange the link as with CVP?
4. The judge obviously has no idea what I missed of the first hearing
- took him a long time to realise I was having problems while the claimant continued to present his case.
Should I email the court & point out these deficiencies again now or leave commenting until the next trial hearing?
TIA
