Case is struck out for citing no legal grounds, can I start again with legal grounds?

[AshDunn]

I started a small claims case but for some reason the money claim online website cut off the end of my particulars of claim? Anyway these sentences were my legal grounds so allegations of breach of contract etc. The Judge in the court where the case was allocated has just struck the case out as it didn't state the legal grounds for the claim.

My question is that, as the case was struck out for the above reason, can I start it anew and not fall foul of the second bite of the cherry rule? In other words, does a lack of legal grounds mean I can bring another claim based on the same issues, but this time citing the legalities?

[echat11]

If the case has been struck out without a Hearing, you can have the Order set aside, providing you do it within the required period of time. You don't need to start a new claim.

[AshDunn]

But it would be much cheaper, and less hassle, to start a new claim...

[Pezza54]

You should have read the rules of MCOL
Your PoC was probably cut off because you exceeded the maximum number of characters, which is about a thousand.
Your Statement of Truth, being at the end of the document, would also have been missing
You should consider a new paper based claim
Unfortunately this process takes longer, and delays depend on your local county court

[AshDunn]

But would it be second bite of the cherry?

[Pezza54]

Why do you say that? CPR allows it

[R0b]

But would it be second bite of the cherry?

Have to disagree with Pezza's view that you should issue a new claim.

It is likely to be considered an abuse of process by yourself and or the Latin phrase res judicata which means a matter that has already been determined. If your claim has been struck out for disclosing no reasonable grounds, you cannot simply issue a new claim as it will be seen as an attempt to circumvent an order of the court, so you need to make an application to set aside the strike out. The application will be deemed a relief from sanctions i.e. the sanction being it was struck out and there is three criteria that needs to be determined if the court is to set aside. These criteria are based on the 'Denton Principles' and you should look them up.

There are, in rare circumstances where a court might allow a second bite of the cherry by issuing a new claim, but the case law suggests that they will look at the reasons for the strike out of the initial claim. If the reason was inexcusable the claim is like to be struck out unless there are special reasons for doing so.

If you decide to issue a new claim, you run the risk of the other side seeking to strike out again or ask for summary judgment together with their costs incurred which may inevitably rack up if they instruct legal representatives.

[Pezza54]

The reason that the claimant did not realise that the end of his PoC had been cut off because of limited lines and characters would probably be regarded as inexcusable.
MCOL states PoC is a maximum of 24 lines and 45 characters.
OP should have ticked the box and sent detailed PoC direct to the defendant. Ticking the box reduces the maximum number of lines to 23

[R0b]

It's been a while since I issued a claim using MCOL but last time I checked the CPR modified the rules such that the statement of truth was effectively the claimant ticking the box to proceed and submitting the claim, and therefore claimant is verifying the facts in the claim form are true for the purposes of CPR 22.

I thought the reason why MCOL had the exception to the statement of truth rule was because the system was so old it was too time consuming to make the updates, but if that's not changed then it severely limits the lines that one can write in the box since the statement of truth amounts to around 300 characters and the total character limit is 1080.

Still, the statement of truth aside, the legal grounds is still an issue but striking out a claim is a draconian stance and the (higher authority) courts have acknowledged that an opportunity should be given to remedy any defective procedural errors before a strike out should be given.

[echat11]

The OP is stating that it got struck out because of the following,

Anyway these sentences were my legal grounds so allegations of breach of contract etc. The Judge in the court where the case was allocated has just struck the case out as it didn't state the legal grounds for the claim.'

So there are good reasons for striking it out.

[R0b]

The OP is stating that it got struck out because of the following,

Anyway these sentences were my legal grounds so allegations of breach of contract etc. The Judge in the court where the case was allocated has just struck the case out as it didn't state the legal grounds for the claim.'

So there are good reasons for striking it out.

Maybe so, but there is various authority right up to the Supreme Court that confirms strike out of valid claims should be a last resort after other options have been exhausted. As the court has struck out the claim of its own motion, the OP would have fairly solid grounds for setting aside if no opportunity to remedy the defects were offered by the court, unless the claim itself is simply hopeless. The OP would need to incur the cost of the application and unlikely to be able to recover that back due to their own errors.