Naming a defendant on Part 8

[wellyboot]

I intend to use Part 8 to ask the court to decide which of two contracts is valid. They are both between myself and an overseas firm. There cannot be any dispute of facts as one contract very clearly states that in the event of a conflict, the previous contract governs. However, a dispute has arisen and the overseas firm seeks to rely on the (in my opinion) wrong contract. The Part 8 guidance states that permission may be required to file if the defendant is outside of the EU and the court manager tells me it is not usual for this to be granted. I would therefore prefer to not name the defendant and pay the appropriate fee for not doing so. Seeking thoughts on whether this is acceptable in this instance

[atticus]

This is NOT the way to go. The other party must be given the opportunity to put its case and to be heard.

[wellyboot]

This is NOT the way to go. The other party must be given the opportunity to put its case and to be heard.

How would this be possible if the court regularly refuse permission to file due to the defendant being overseas? There is no alternative version of events to be heard. It is simply a determination required as to which of the two existing contracts governs.

[atticus]

What makes you think that the court refuses permission to serve out of the jurisdiction? That is not my experience if you can put forward good reasons. Read Practice Direction 6B: https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pr...pd_part06b#2.1

As to what you think your case "simply" is, lawyers and courts know that there is often another point of view. Expecting to get a ruling binding another party to a contract without giving that other party a chance to participate in the proceedings is ridiculous.