"Based on the same facts..."

[AshDunn]

I took a company to court, because they wouldn't exchange faulty goods. They sent me a settlement agreement to sign and email back to them, which I did - but at the same time they had made an application to the court which I didn't know about, not mentioning the settlement negotiations at all, and arguing they were not liable. Got the case struck out.

I have now started a new claim as I have been advised they breached the settlement agreement by not paying it and I can hold them responsible for that.

They have made another application to strike out my claim, arguing that the crux of my claim against them has already been dealt with in a hearing - and not mentioning the settlement agreement, again.

They want it thrown out as they say my case is based on the same facts - despite this being the first time I have brought the breached settlement to the attention of the court.

Can anyone advise how this is, as per their interpretation, based on the same facts?

[AshDunn]

FYI: The agreement only required my signature, no witness to it was required, nor a signature from them.

[atticus]

Is the settlement agreement agreed? Did they sign it?

[Manxman]

AshDunn - ignoring the question of the settlement agreement for the moment, how did the defendant get the case "struck out"?

Did you not comply with all the legal technicalities involved in bringing a claim, or did a judge actually find against on the basis of your claim? (eg the goods were not faulty as you claimed)

[AshDunn]

The sneaky bastards found out I was abroad, and instead of cancelling the claim as arranged, they attended the application hearing. I found out afterwards.

There was no space on the settlement to add their own signature, just a space for mine, and a date, all filled in and sent back well before this application hearing.

It appeared, and still does, that they did it all on purpose.

Think it was struck out in the end because I was not there to represent myself so judge only heard their side of the case.

[atticus]

Did you know about the hearing date in advance? If so, why did you not attend? Was that decision based on anything said by the other party, and if so what?

[AshDunn]

I endeavoured to get it adjourned until my return, but it was a court in London and communications via phone and email were utterly useless.

[atticus]

When was this?

[AshDunn]

Last year.

[atticus]

Probably a bit late to ask the court to review the decision made in your absence.

[AshDunn]

I consider the breach of the settlement agreement a separate issues from the substance of the complaint/original case itself. i.e. not based on the same facts. Am I right? Agreement (breached) was to settle the claim, whereas claim itself was the substance of my complaint about the company.

[atticus]

You have not demonstrated that there was a concluded settlement agreement. If there was, your claim is for performance by the other party of its obligations, presumably to pay you a specified sum.

[LaylaBrown]

Please ignore. Wrong thread.

[AshDunn]

atticus thank you. I know I can prove this - but I am just trying to confirm that this is not the same claim as the original claim itself, as they say, and is therefore not second bit of the cherry?

[atticus]

A claim for payment of sums agreed in a settlement agreement would be a different claim, based on a different cause of action.