Tweet
We recently had a telephone hearing to defend a case against us. We followed the court rules (provided directions questionnaire, defence, trial bundle) all on time and to the claimant. The Claimant however has not provided us with copies of the directions questionnaire, his defence to our counterclaim nor did he provide his trial bundle until 1 day before the hearing and his evidence was still allowed. The Claimant turned up at court when it was a telephone hearing and his mobile signal was not great and he kept disconnecting from the hearing. Therefore the judge adjourned. This doesn't seem very fair to me as we have followed the rules and they have not?
Loading...
-
Tags: None -
The Courts try to do justice in the underlying case. They can be rather more forgiving to litigants in person than they are to those who have legal representation.
Also, take a look at the Claimant's evidence now you have it. I have sometimes seen that judges take a lenient stand on these things to those they are going to rule against, so that they do not go away thinking their case has not been properly heard. Obviously I have no idea whether this is the case here.Lawyer (solicitor) - retired from practice, now supervising solicitor in a university law clinic. I do not advise by private message.
Guides and handbooks for Litigants in Person - :
https://legalbeagles.info/forums/for...60#post1701560 -
We did have a brief read through but it was such a mess. The judge did try to proceed with the hearing but due to the claimant's technical difficulties (which probably would not have happened had they stayed at home to do the hearing). They instead ordered us to provide a Scott's schedule with what was agreed to be carried out and what has actually been carried out with a section for comments.
Also they made the claim against the company name but didn't add the Limited - not sure if that makes any difference?Comment
-
We did have a brief read through but it was such a mess. The judge did try to proceed with the hearing but due to the claimant's technical difficulties (which probably would not have happened had they stayed at home to do the hearing). They instead ordered us to provide a Scott's schedule with what was agreed to be carried out and what has actually been carried out with a section for comments.Originally posted by atticus View Post
Also they made the claim against the company name but didn't add the Limited - not sure if that makes any difference?Comment
-
The company name point - this will not make any material difference.
Scott Schedule - you may find this helpful: https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pr...-schedule-noteLawyer (solicitor) - retired from practice, now supervising solicitor in a university law clinic. I do not advise by private message.
Guides and handbooks for Litigants in Person - :
https://legalbeagles.info/forums/for...60#post1701560Comment
-
Comment