County court papers received out of blue from lowell

[mystery1]

Re: County court papers received out of blue from lowell

The letter that told you to go to court tomorrow.

M1

[Scigal]

Re: County court papers received out of blue from lowell

Ok ive taken it as photos and trying to find a way to upload ot here, on an ipad mini

[mystery1]

Re: County court papers received out of blue from lowell

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjnPAhAdxZQ

M1

[Scigal]

Re: County court papers received out of blue from lowell

Mmm having a difficult time trying to do this

[mystery1]

Re: County court papers received out of blue from lowell

Email it to admin.

M1

[Scigal]

Re: County court papers received out of blue from lowell

Email it to admin.

M1

I think this is it.

[Scigal]

Re: County court papers received out of blue from lowell

[mystery1]

Re: County court papers received out of blue from lowell

Yes. You got the next page and the previous page too please.

M1

[mystery1]

Re: County court papers received out of blue from lowell

Or just the 1st page with 1 & 2 on it then

M1

[Scigal]

Re: County court papers received out of blue from lowell

Or just the 1st page with 1 & 2 on it then

M1

[Scigal]

Re: County court papers received out of blue from lowell

Bugger. THeir letters claim to be open on a sunday. Despite the website saying otherwise.

i am screwed, they will tie me up in legalese knots

Edit: actually, its the 2013 letters that have sunday hours, the 2010 letters is different again. Ffs

[Scigal]

Re: County court papers received out of blue from lowell

Anyone got any ideas on what i should say and do please? Im in work first thing, and not allowed to use the pc so cant do much there

[mystery1]

Re: County court papers received out of blue from lowell

Ok.

They are attempting to introduce a witness statement and supporting evidence. This was with you 1 day before the hearing.

Judge x was clear in the court order dated 11/3/14 that "Each party mustdeliver to every other party and to the court office copies of all documents on which the party intends to rely at the hearing no later than 14 days before the hearing." Numbers 9 & 12 of the order specify that the court may refuse to accept anything that is not produced as directed.

The over riding objective can be found http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pro...les/part01#1.1

The overriding objective
1.1
(1) These Rules are a new procedural code with the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost.
(2) Dealing with a case justly and at proportionate cost includes, so far as is practicable –
(a) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing;
(b) saving expense;
(c) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate –
(i) to the amount of money involved;
(ii) to the importance of the case;
(iii) to the complexity of the issues; and
(iv) to the financial position of each party;
(d) ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly;
(e) allotting to it an appropriate share of the court’s resources, while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases; and
(f) enforcing compliance with rules, practice directions and orders.
Application by the court of the overriding objective
1.2
The court must seek to give effect to the overriding objective when it –
(a) exercises any power given to it by the Rules


These were discussed in http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/1537.html Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1537 (27 November 2013) and a test of the Mitchell principle has evolved in subsequent decisions, these are summarised in Chartwell Estate Agents Ltd v Fergies Properties SA & Anor [2014] EWCA Civ 506 (16 April 2014) as

34. Regard must of course be had to the totality of the decision in Mitchell . But the guidance can, I think, for present purposes be summarised as follows:
i) It is necessary to consider whether the nature of the non-compliance is such that it can be regarded as trivial.
ii) If the non-compliance is not trivial, it is necessary to consider whether there is a good reason explaining the non-compliance.
iii) The promptness (or otherwise) of an application to court for an extension of time and relief from sanction for these purposes will be material.
iv) If the non-compliance is not trivial and if there is no good reason for the non-compliance then the "expectation" is that the sanction will apply. The court has power to grant relief but, if the non-compliance is not trivial and if there is no good reason for it, the expectation is that the factors mentioned in (a) and (b) of the rule will "usually trump other circumstances".
See, in particular, paragraphs 40-41 and 58 of the judgment of the court. It is also stated (at paragraph 46):


"The new more robust approach that we have outlined above will mean that from now on relief from sanctions should be granted more sparingly than previously."


I would submit that this test is a good indication of whether the court should allow the late submission of the witness statement and supporting documents.

It is clear that the claimant did not comply with the court order. The witness statement of Richard Ian Senior was dated and emailed on 29/5/14. The trial date is 30/5/14.

Is this a trivial breach of the court order ? In Top Brands Ltd & Anor v Sharma (As Former Liquidator of Mama Milla Ltd) [2014] EWHC 1454 (Ch) (08 May 2014) at para 76. "In Mitchell , the Court of Appeal, at paragraph 36, emphasised that the courts will treat the need for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost and the need for orders, rules and practice directions to be enforced as being of paramount importance to which great weight is to be given. Turning to the circumstances of R's application to adjourn the trial of As' s.212 application, an unheralded very late application of this nature does not fit into the very narrow gap through which trivial non-compliance may be allowed to pass. The only available explanation for the lateness of the application is recent change of legal representation; of itself that is not a sufficient reason. Following Mitchell , the court will subject an application to adjourn a trial to rigorous scrutiny and only grant such an application where the reasons for so doing have been shown to outweigh the disadvantages of so doing, which disadvantages include the imperatives referred to above."

I would submit that submission of a witness statement and supporting documents 1 day before trial, without reason, falls outside the ambit of a trivial breach of the court order. Further no submission has been made to escape a sanction for the failure. I submit that the court should rule that, in line with the Mitchell principles and the over riding objective, that the witness statement and documents are inadmissable. As referred to in Top Brands i would say that the court date should not be adjourned and the claim continue as is without the out of time evidence.











Now if the court agrees, and it should, that the witness statement is out. The only evidence they would be left with is the statement of claim . The statement of claim is signed by "drydens ltd. t/a drydenfairfax"

The rules say http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pro...es/part22#22.1

Documents to be verified by a statement of truth
22.1
(1) The following documents must be verified by a statement of truth –
(a) a statement of case

Practice direction 22

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pro.../pd_part22#3.1

Who may sign the statement of truth

3.1 In a statement of case, a response or an application notice, the statement of truth must be signed by
(2) the legal representative³ of the party or litigation friend.


3.10 A legal representative who signs a statement of truth must sign in his own name and not that of his firm or employer.


Now this is a money claim online claim so practice direction 7e applies.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pro...d_part07e#10.1


Signature
10 Any provision of the CPR which requires a document to be signed by any person is satisfied by that person entering their name on an online form.



So clearly the solicitor can sign the form but has not done so as he has put the company name which is expressly forbidden by the rules. So what happens to the statement of case if it is not verified by a statement of truth (signed) ?

CPR 22

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pro...es/part22#22.2

Failure to verify a statement of case
22.2
(1) If a party fails to verify his statement of case by a statement of truth –
(a) the statement of case shall remain effective unless struck out; but
(b) the party may not rely on the statement of case as evidence of any of the matters set out in it.



So if the court correctly rules out the witness statement and documents and the incorrectly signed statement of case cannot be relied upon they have no case. Game over.


However you should have the back up of statute barred and the dodgy payments you discussed with others.

You need copies of all cases i mention (3 of each 1 for you them and court). Rules you only need a copy for yourself.

M1

[Scigal]

Re: County court papers received out of blue from lowell

Wow!! Thank you xxxxxxx and a million more xxxxx.

so really they must know they are acting incorrectly? And surely the judge should look at it and claim BS and see right through them?

So when we go in the room shall i ask to read out what you said ?

[mystery1]

Re: County court papers received out of blue from lowell

Kind of. Each part at the right time. Not sure if the judge will accept an objection right away or whether they can introduce their case without you interrupting and then saying no when it's your turn. When they try to use it object and see what the judge says.

Each judge does things their way. Ideally you'd want to get the evidence booted without being seen.

M1