Defamation online case

[Barefoot]

I made an online 10k claim for defamation which was heard in my local county court via BTmeet. I lost the case and was awarded 7k costs against me believe it or not. After threats of bankruptcy proceedings I paid the amount but I am now being told a county court cannot rule on a defamation case unless both sides agree it has to be Crown Court. I never knew this and I was never given the option can I get this ruling set aside and get my money back?

[R0b]

The Crown Court is a criminal court, not a civil one so whoever told you that is wrong. The Civil Procedure Rules states that a County Court does not have the jurisdiction to hear defamation cases unless both sides consent to it. The usual starting point to issue defamation claims are in the High Court.

The fact that you never knew and/or were not given the option is no excuse. Everybody has to follow the same rules and there is not one rule for lawyers and companies and another set of rules for non-legal people. It's your fault if you didn't know the rules as you should have made some inquiries and checked.

Nobody can give you a definitive answer on how successful you will be to get it set aside, you will need to make an application to set aside or appeal the decision on the basis it was issued in the wrong court. It may be argued that if the Defendant did not raise in their defence that the County Court did not have jurisdiction then they could be taken to have consented to the court's jurisdiction. I actually don't know the process as to how the parties consent and I've not seen any authorities on that.

I am not so sure a court would allow the judgment to be set aside as that would appear to be inherently unfair on the defendant who would have incurred costs in defending the claim. You are basically saying, you issued a claim, lost your case and had to pay costs now you realised you made a mistake after the fact and you want all your monies back at the defendant's expense - doesn't seem right don't you think?

All I can suggest is give it a go but don't get your hopes up.

[des8]

It seems there must be a memorandum signed by both parties agreeing to the CC having jurisdiction as per sec 18 of
County Courts Act 1984

":If the parties to any action, other than an action which, if commenced in the High Court, would have been assigned to the Chancery Division or to the Family Division or have involved the exercise of the High Court’s Admiralty jurisdiction, agree, by a memorandum signed by them or by their respective [F1legal representatives], that [F2the county court] F3... shall have jurisdiction in the action, that court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine the action accordingly."

[R0b]

Good spot des. I suppose based on that, there is merit in getting the judgment set aside since the correct rules/processes have not been followed but I'm not sure that means the whole thing is unravelled such that each party is put in the position before the claim was issued, including costs and expenses.

I could see the court setting aside the judgment, but as we know, courts have the discretion as to whether costs should be awarded or not. I wonder if this might be something that the Defendant would argue i.e. they never brought the claim in the first place, the claimant by his own negligence failed to comply with the rules and should therefore not be entitled to benefit from his own wrongdoing.

[des8]

The contrary argument of course is that the defence (judging by costs a solicitor plus perhaps barrister's opinion)were also negligent (and perhaps more culpable as professionals) and should have avoided incurring such costs by drawing the courts attention to the rules.
Six of one and half a dozen of the other!

Viewing the sums involved it might be worth a punt to attempt a set aside, but I think it needs to be done as a judicial review in the Administrative Court

[R0b]

You may be right, but the courts have plenty times explained it is not the duty of the other side to point out their failings! Seems to me the defendant was happy to proceed under the CC jurisdiction even if the correct formalities were not followed.

Not sure about the judicial review point though, since this is a county court judgment and the proper process is to appeal or just an application set aside. Just can't see a JR being the right process since they are reserved for decisions made by a public body.

Anyway, I agree it might be worth a punt, at the risk of incurring additional costs which might not be recoverable.

[des8]

Courts are a public body, and their decisions can also be subject to judicial review (had to hunt to make sure my understanding is at least partially correct... it has been years since.........) https://assets.publishing.service.go..._Final_Web.pdf

Bear in mind though that :".1. If the claimant is successful in judicial review proceedings, but the Court considers that it is highly likely that the outcome for the claimant would not have been substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred, the Court must refuse to grant any form of relief, and may not award damages, in the claim for judicial review unless the Court considers it appropriate to do so for reasons of exceptional public interest.131

example of Administrative Court judicial review of county court
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/...2018/1029.html

But whether or not worthwhile we cannot hazard a guess as we are not aware of the case details

[Barefoot]

I did it all online as in up to 10k max claim. Just before the hearing was due I was struggling with anxiety so I wrote to the defendants solicitor asking how could I get it adjourned through my health issues. They told me to write to the court so I sent the court the same email. I heard nothing and the hearing carried on as scheduled. The defendants team was 2 senior solicitors and a barrister from JMW. As soon as it started the judge said I had sent an email into court wanting an adjournment due to my mental health issues and asked all 3 if any had been sent to them also and they all said no!

The judge adjourned the hearing but they wanted costs as they had all turned up with no prior knowledge of me wanting it adjourned therefore I should pay their costs on the day. The judge said they were to be carried over and it would have been far better if I had copied in JMW so they would have known.

Now yes you will say why didn't I bring it to the courts attention that I had sent the same email to JMW and they did know but I was that nervous and stressed I had forgot! The new hearing was a month later I tried to bring this up with the same judge be he just shut me down. I lost the case which in fairness I was stupid to have brought as I had been harrased and bullied by someone for 2 years and with no help from the police I brought the case to court hoping this would stop the person who is very affluent and because 3 more turned up for the 2nd hearing the costs were as I say over 7k.

I then applied via a N245 application to pay monthly and their solicitor wrote in with crazy allegations of my wealth. I then wrote in to refute all this plus I was adamant that they had misled the court and turned up to the 1st hearing team handed to get the cost's up as they knew my case was useless. This solicitor ended up sending 3 witness statements in and and my N245 was rejected so I paid £250 and put in a N244 application saying I wanted the decision set aside as rge cost's were unfair and they had lied to the court.

I was then sent a letter from the court saying there was to be a new hearing on the 9th of June which then resulted in 2 more witness statements and a skeleton argument from their solicitor and myself being bombarded with emails from him saying my case was totally unfounded and that I will definitely be paying his costs which will be over 5k this time.

I realise I am way out of my depth and a fool to carry this on but I have been bullied by this solicitor and all I have done is told the court in 2 statements that they told lies at the 1st hearing and I sent a copy of the emails between us that showed I sent them the same email saying I wanted an adjournment and it was them that told me I had to apply to the court not them.

So now it looks like I might have to pay even more costs to this bully yet I have done nothing wring. That is why I was asking if I could get the verdict set aside as it should never have taken place in a county court.

Kev

[EXC]

We've got two current cases here where defamation claims were filed in the county court and have so far survived.

One where the court transferred it to the high court of their own motion after the claimant had simply emailed the court saying he'd made a mistake. The other where the claimant knowingly filed in the county court without the defendant's agreement and the court have ordered an Early Neutral Evaluation hearing with the jurisdiction issue top of the agenda.

Something seems to have changed in the last few years as you may recall the Kelly's Vegies case when we filed an application to get the case struck on jurisdictional grounds and succeeded easily - see below.

As always with defamation the golden rule is that unless you've got pots of money or you know exactly what you're doing, never ever start a defamation claim.

[R0b]

des8 I think we are thinking about different things. I agree a county court's decision can be reviewed but in respect of the procedural elements only, not the actual judgments themselves - think this was confirmed with reference to a CoA about the admin court not being an appellate function.

JR might be the right way to go but I'm not convinced this issue would be sufficient to merit a review. Other than the HC confirming that a CC should not hear a defamation case without the consent of the parties, what other remedies are there given that this was instigated by the OP himself as the claimant? I just cannot see a HC judge unwinding everything including the judgment as if nothing happened.

Anyway, Barefoot unless you get a sympathetic judge and the defendant doesn't successfully appeal, I think you might have to resign yourself to the fact that you could incur further costs. To say you have done nothing wrong is not true, you seem to have not complied with the relevant procedural rules around where a defamation claim should be issued and also communications with the court where you should always be copying in the other side. I'm afraid a court will likely be reluctant to accept that you made a mistake and therefore you should get away with it scot free despite your mental health issues - as I said before, the rules are to be obeyed by everyone and if you don't adhere to them, then there are almost always consequences that follow.

Of course this is just my opinion and I could be wrong but there have been several decisions in the last couple of years where unrepresented parties are in over their heads or just don't bother to look up the rules and the result is significant costs awarded against them.

[des8]

To be clear you have a hearing on 9th June for a set aside hearing on basis the costs awarded were unfair and the other party had lied to the court.

re their statement about not being aware of your application for an adjournment it seems you asked their advice, and then requested the adjournment from the court. Did you confirm to them that you had actually requested the court adjourn the hearing after they had told you the procedure?

Also what was the actual wording of your original claim?
You have headed the thread "defamation ...." but in your latest post only refer to being " harassed and bullied".
If it was defamation, although you have left it a tad late, you should try and insert the jurisdictional matter

[Barefoot]

I sent jmw an email saying I wanted it adjourned for mental health issues outlining then and my medication. They told me to write into the court and I did by forwarding the same email As soon as the hearing started the judge said they're had been an email sent to the court where Mr Moore is wanting an adjournment due to some health issues have any been sent to yourselves or copied in he asked each person individually and all 3 said no. Later on 1 solicitor who was not the barrister addressing the court chipped in on the phone when discussing costs and said "also we knew nothing about mr Moores health issues until the start of this hearing" and the judge said yes yes that unfortunately is correct. I then complained that 2 of jmw were now addressing the court is that fair and the judge told me as it was a BTmeet hearing he would allow it.

Then in summing up their barrister said all 3 of us arrived here today with no prior knowledge of Mr Moores health problems and seeking an adjournment so why should their client pay her own costs. The judge agreed telling me i should have emailed them or copied them in but allowed the costs to be carried over and adjourned as he said at a later date I could claim I did not have the mental capacity to represent myself. I had to return with a gp letter saying I was OK to which I did.

I am just a layman but to be they had the costs carried over resulting in a 7.2k costs I've had to pay which I wrote in with my N245 application saying I thought they had misled the court as they knew full well about my health and I thought if you told lies in court to a judge it was a serious matter that's why complained.

[Barefoot]

The email I sent to jmw was only a week before the actual hearing. I undestand that I should have emailed them back saying I had applied to the court but it was their answers to the judges quite specific question have you been sent or copied in in on any emails by Mr Moore wanting the case adjourned due to his health issies.

Better still a friend of the defendant that I know rang me after the 1st hearing and told me they all knew I was wanting it adjourned and they were gutted it was. I have sent that recording into the court as evidence but don't expect it will help. He also said they deliberately all turned up to get the costs up as my case was going to be definitely struck out as it had no merit at all which in hindsight was true. It did not need a barrister and 2 senior solicitors from jmw to attend looking back now as like a fool my case was useless!

I don't want to say to much of what happened and why I took out this online money case as this hearing is due soon.

[des8]

well as there is some doubt as to whether or not your claim was for defamation, it is difficult to advise in any meaningful way.

however that recording of a conversation with a friend might possibly be not admitted as evidence as it is only hearsay.

As this was in the small claims track they were only awarded their costs because your behaviour was deemed unreasonable.
You will need to show it was not.

Somehow, if this was a claim for defamation, you also need to work in that whilst you incorrectly started the case in the County Court, they also were unreasonable in not bringing the question of jurisdiction to the court's notice, but actually packing their side with highly paid professionals who would be expected to know the rules.

[Barefoot]

It was for defamation the defendant sent 2 texts to my care manager that were complete lies about me as in really nasty. This was after so many to myself that I thought this would stop it and I thought the lies and accusations defamed me. The judge said that it had to have damaged my reputation and he felt it did not so he ruled for the other person. I genuinely thought it had done exactly that but hey who am I to know and I did it out of desperation as it was so fool me.

If I cannot have the verdict set aside or the costs dropped or whatever I am hoping that at least the 2 solicitors from jmw are at least brought to task as they did tell lies as my emails to them prove they knew about my health issues and that I wanted it adjourning.

I am now being told by jmw that I have no case and that I will be paying them more costs. I find that quite remarkable as all I did was inform the court that I believe they tried to mislead the court which they did and they have written more statements with more lies trying to wriggle out of it but say its their clients costs when it had nothing to do with their client as it was their actions in court I complained about. It seems I am now going to have to pay their costs for bringing it to the courts attention!

What I do not understand is why the judge has agreed to another hearing over this issue if I am wrong and have no case why did he not reject my application and save me the costs jmw say I am most certainly going to have to pay them?