Re: cca REQUESTED FROM LLOYDS IN 2009 NOTHING AS YET...... NOW COURT PAPERS FROM CAPQ
You should only deny the debt if you really have no idea what they're talking about. You obviously DO, so no, not a good idea. :nono:
I'm going to quote from PT2537 again:
We seem to be getting a bit confused here. It is to YOUR advantage to get the full 28 days the CPR allows, not theirs. The 28 days are for YOU to submit YOUR defence, not for THEM to supply the paperwork. They have to supply the paperwork ahead of that time.
Originally posted by sarnie2109
View Post
Originally posted by sarnie2109
View Post
If a claimant suggests that they do not need to provide documents at this stage but they will provide them at full disclosure stage, then it may be worth referring them to this Court of Appeal ruling here http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/59.html
In particular i do like para 24 of Rix LJ judgment:
So if the lender says we dont have to provide docs mentioned in our statement of case now, politley tell them that the Court of Appeal seems to think they do.
In particular i do like para 24 of Rix LJ judgment:
The general ethos of the CPR is for a more cards on the table approach to litigation. If a party thinks it worthwhile to mention a document in his pleadings, witness statements or affidavits, I do not see why, subject as I say to the question of privilege, the court should put difficulties in the way of inspection. I look upon the mention of a document in pleadings etc as a form of disclosure. The document in question has not been disclosed by list, or at any rate not yet, but it has been disclosed by mention in what, for the purposes of litigation, is another important and formal category of documents. If so, then the party deploying that document by its mention should in principle be prepared to be required to permit its inspection, and the other party should be entitled to its inspection. What in such circumstances is the virtue of coyness?
Originally posted by sarnie2109
View Post
Comment