Tweet
Background:
I am the defendant in a claim issued on 23 December 2024. I received the court-issued claim form on 28 December 2024, but the claimant served particulars prematurely on 21 December 2024, before the claim was issued by the court. The premature particulars were served without the necessary response pack forms (e.g., N9) and lacked a password for accessing the Money Claim Online (MCOL) portal.
Since the court issued claim form did not include the particulars of claim (noted in their claim that they would provide within 14 days), I understand that under CPR 7.4, the claimant was required to serve valid particulars within 14 days of service of the claim form (by 11 January 2025). To date, I have not received valid particulars that comply with this requirement.
The premature particulars also referenced evidence (e.g., agreements or operational logs), but these were not attached or explained. Furthermore, the claim form itself did not meet CPR 16.2(1), as it failed to include a concise statement of the nature of the claim or cause of action.
Nature of the Claim:
The claim concerns a device that was voluntarily sent to me as a gift by the claimant after they claimed on their insurance when a remote worker accidentally damaged it. The insurance claim resulted in a full replacement, and the claimant’s CEO subsequently offered me the device as a "free machine". The arrangement was entirely informal, without any conditions or agreement, and I had no written terms of employment or contract (this was a key issue in the employment tribunal I brought against the claimant).
It is also important to note that the device was never in the physical possession of the claimant’s company, as it was sent directly to me by the remote worker (also without formal written contract) who had the machine repaired receipts in his name but presumably paid for by the company.
The claim now appears to allege that I must either return the device or pay for it, despite the claimant having already been compensated through their insurance policy and having voluntarily gifted the repaired device to me.
Concerns:
What I Have Done So Far:
1. I submitted my Acknowledgment of Service on 4 January 2025.
2. I emailed the court seeking clarification on:
The court responded that they could not provide legal advice but suggested I respond to avoid default judgment.
Questions for the Forum:
1.Can I Apply to Strike Out the Claim Under CPR 3.4?
2.What Are My Options If Valid Particulars Are Eventually Served Late?
3.Defence Timeline:
4.Raising Harassment as a Defence or Application Basis:
I am trying to navigate this situation carefully to ensure I comply with court procedures. However, the claimant’s procedural irregularities, lack of detail, and apparent retaliatory motives have caused unnecessary stress and confusion. Any advice on how to handle this effectively, particularly in relation to a strike-out application, would be greatly appreciated.
I am the defendant in a claim issued on 23 December 2024. I received the court-issued claim form on 28 December 2024, but the claimant served particulars prematurely on 21 December 2024, before the claim was issued by the court. The premature particulars were served without the necessary response pack forms (e.g., N9) and lacked a password for accessing the Money Claim Online (MCOL) portal.
Since the court issued claim form did not include the particulars of claim (noted in their claim that they would provide within 14 days), I understand that under CPR 7.4, the claimant was required to serve valid particulars within 14 days of service of the claim form (by 11 January 2025). To date, I have not received valid particulars that comply with this requirement.
The premature particulars also referenced evidence (e.g., agreements or operational logs), but these were not attached or explained. Furthermore, the claim form itself did not meet CPR 16.2(1), as it failed to include a concise statement of the nature of the claim or cause of action.
Nature of the Claim:
The claim concerns a device that was voluntarily sent to me as a gift by the claimant after they claimed on their insurance when a remote worker accidentally damaged it. The insurance claim resulted in a full replacement, and the claimant’s CEO subsequently offered me the device as a "free machine". The arrangement was entirely informal, without any conditions or agreement, and I had no written terms of employment or contract (this was a key issue in the employment tribunal I brought against the claimant).
It is also important to note that the device was never in the physical possession of the claimant’s company, as it was sent directly to me by the remote worker (also without formal written contract) who had the machine repaired receipts in his name but presumably paid for by the company.
The claim now appears to allege that I must either return the device or pay for it, despite the claimant having already been compensated through their insurance policy and having voluntarily gifted the repaired device to me.
Concerns:
- I believe the claimant has failed to comply with CPR 7.4 and CPR 16.4, making it impossible for me to prepare an appropriate defence.
- This claim appears to be part of a pattern of harassment from the claimant, including prior vexatious threats and a history of retaliatory behaviour following an employment tribunal I brought against them. (I sent them a formal cease and desist notice due to the ongoing harassment, had also filed a report with the police)
What I Have Done So Far:
1. I submitted my Acknowledgment of Service on 4 January 2025.
2. I emailed the court seeking clarification on:
- Whether valid particulars of claim have been served.
- My next steps if the claimant has failed to comply with procedural rules.
The court responded that they could not provide legal advice but suggested I respond to avoid default judgment.
Questions for the Forum:
1.Can I Apply to Strike Out the Claim Under CPR 3.4?
- The claimant has failed to comply with CPR 7.4 (service of particulars) and CPR 16.4 (insufficient detail). Would this justify a strike-out application?
- Can I also argue that the claim is an abuse of process due to the ongoing harassment and retaliatory actions?
2.What Are My Options If Valid Particulars Are Eventually Served Late?
- Should I issue a CPR Part 18 request for further clarification and evidence if the particulars still lack detail?
- Alternatively, should I immediately apply to strike out the claim if the particulars remain vague or unsupported?
3.Defence Timeline:
- If the court deems the premature particulars valid, how should I calculate my deadline to file a defence?
- If the claimant is granted an extension to serve valid particulars, would my timeline restart from the date of service?
4.Raising Harassment as a Defence or Application Basis:
- Can I formally raise the harassment and retaliatory nature of this claim in either my defence or as part of an application to strike out for abuse of process?
I am trying to navigate this situation carefully to ensure I comply with court procedures. However, the claimant’s procedural irregularities, lack of detail, and apparent retaliatory motives have caused unnecessary stress and confusion. Any advice on how to handle this effectively, particularly in relation to a strike-out application, would be greatly appreciated.