Non-compliance with the Practice Direction

[heisenberg]

Dear all,

Could someone kindly offer a view on whether there is anything that can be done to force the other party to full comply with the Practice Direction. In other words, is there any application one can make to the court without actually submitting a claim?

The other side is prejudicing my position by not complying with the Practice Direction. This appears to be a tactical move.

Many thanks.

[nemesis45]

Re: Non-compliance with the Practice Direction

Dear all,

Could someone kindly offer a view on whether there is anything that can be done to force the other party to full comply with the Practice Direction. In other words, is there any application one can make to the court without actually submitting a claim?

The other side is prejudicing my position by not complying with the Practice Direction. This appears to be a tactical move.

Many thanks.

Is this in regard to the thread you have already?

nem

[heisenberg]

Re: Non-compliance with the Practice Direction

Is this in regard to the thread you have already?

nem

Which thread?

[nemesis45]

Re: Non-compliance with the Practice Direction

Which thread?

" service of letter before action"?

- - - Updated - - -

Which thread?

" service of letter before action"?

[heisenberg]

Re: Non-compliance with the Practice Direction

I suppose one could argue that it does. How does this address the initial question though?

[nemesis45]

Re: Non-compliance with the Practice Direction

I suppose one could argue that it does. How does this address the initial question though?

More detail would help!

[mystery1]

Re: Non-compliance with the Practice Direction

Which practice direction ?

If it's the pre action one then i don't think so as the penalties for non compliance lie in costs.

There are applications that can be made pre claim such as 31.16.

M1

[R0b]

Re: Non-compliance with the Practice Direction

Dear all,

Could someone kindly offer a view on whether there is anything that can be done to force the other party to full comply with the Practice Direction. In other words, is there any application one can make to the court without actually submitting a claim?

The other side is prejudicing my position by not complying with the Practice Direction. This appears to be a tactical move.

Many thanks.

Short answer yes, PAD (Pre-action Disclosure) Application, £155 fee for it.

[heisenberg]

Re: Non-compliance with the Practice Direction

Many thanks good people.

No specific pre-action protocol applies in this case.

They responded to the first proposed claim fully but have skirted round the others.

They are now issuing cost warnings and suggesting I am accruing costs by reasonably asking them to comply with the Practice Direction. They have taken the position that they will not respond further.

If I apply for the PAD (Pre-action Disclosure) and it is unsuccessful then am I liable for costs?

I am exempt from court fees.

[R0b]

Re: Non-compliance with the Practice Direction

Unless the application would be vexatious then I wouldn't see why not. Usually the one requesting disclosure would pay the others costs however where unreasonable conduct / behaviour is concerned then the court has discretion to award costs against them.

I don't know what you have said to them so far but, a letter to say which bits they are not complying with and that you require such information to enable you to confirm whether the claim needs to be issued against them. If they refuse to answer your claims without any valid reason then you could give them a further 14 days and state failure to comply with the pre action protocols then you will have no choice but to issue a PAD application for disclosure, you will seek costs of the application as well as costs incidental to the claim as a result of their unreasonable conduct and reserve the right to draw this letter to the courts attention.

They need to provide a substantive response as to why they are not disclosing such information requested otherwise you would have reasonable grounds for a PAD app.

[heisenberg]

Re: Non-compliance with the Practice Direction

Unless the application would be vexatious then I wouldn't see why not. Usually the one requesting disclosure would pay the others costs however where unreasonable conduct / behaviour is concerned then the court has discretion to award costs against them.

I don't know what you have said to them so far but, a letter to say which bits they are not complying with and that you require such information to enable you to confirm whether the claim needs to be issued against them. If they refuse to answer your claims without any valid reason then you could give them a further 14 days and state failure to comply with the pre action protocols then you will have no choice but to issue a PAD application for disclosure, you will seek costs of the application as well as costs incidental to the claim as a result of their unreasonable conduct and reserve the right to draw this letter to the courts attention.

They need to provide a substantive response as to why they are not disclosing such information requested otherwise you would have reasonable grounds for a PAD app.

Rob, you are my hero.

I wrote to them setting out why I believe they failed to comply. I only received a costs warning in return. I have written back to them again today giving them a few more days and reiterated that they have exchanged insufficient information and therefore not complied with the Practice Direction.

I don't think I can claim the costs of the application though as I am exempt from court fees (financial circumstances).

[R0b]

Re: Non-compliance with the Practice Direction

Rob, you are my hero.

I wrote to them setting out why I believe they failed to comply. I only received a costs warning in return. I have written back to them again today giving them a few more days and reiterated that they have exchanged insufficient information and therefore not complied with the Practice Direction.

I don't think I can claim the costs of the application though as I am exempt from court fees (financial circumstances).

Sorry I didn't read the exemption from fees part so no you won't be able to reclaim costs, but you can relaim costs as to the making of the application, witness statement, letters sent to them prior to the application etc. providing they are reaosnable.

their letter warning of costs seems to be a bit contradicting as the courts see pre-action disclosure as desirable in so far as it can assist to help resolve the dispute and to save costs. The fact that they are arguing further unnecessary costs are being incurred, why are they voiding your request for disclosure of documents? Make sure you are specific with your request of documents as if its too broad the court will not accept it.

[heisenberg]

Re: Non-compliance with the Practice Direction

Their letter warning of costs seems to be a bit contradicting as the courts see pre-action disclosure as desirable in so far as it can assist to help resolve the dispute and to save costs. The fact that they are arguing further unnecessary costs are being incurred, why are they voiding your request for disclosure of documents? Make sure you are specific with your request of documents as if its too broad the court will not accept it.

Thanks Rob. That is essentially what I said to them in my letter requesting further information. It seems to me they are trying to hide behind a costs warning knowing that I am a litigant in person.

- - - Updated - - -

They are suggesting I have accrued costs in excess of £1,000. Is that even possible in the course of exchanging a few short letters/e-mails?

[R0b]

Re: Non-compliance with the Practice Direction

I would question and request a breakdown as to how they have come to those costs over the course of a few emails. Unless a partner is dealing with this it shouldn't come anywhere near this.

[heisenberg]

Re: Non-compliance with the Practice Direction

I think it is a partner that is dealing with it (though this is not clear) though he has conceded himself that he is not a discrimination specialist and they only have one solicitor at that firm who deals with discrimination matters (she is not a partner). The matter relates to discrimination. Seems more nonsense is brewing there.