Tweet
Hello!
I am claimant and started my case against neighbours.
Matter of dispute: defendant, particularly his tenants, were parking the cars on the their land and partially on our land(one caravan on driveway and one car - behind). The both parcels of land is under restrictive covenants and must be free all the time. Before starting a claim It was written several latter to the Defendant but no reply was recieved. Some tenants has lived in his house and it is clear that they got all those letters but didn't want to reply and remove his caravan(which belongs to the owner's girlfriend) from the driveway.
The next: I have started a claim against owner and requeseted injunction to prohibit parking on disputed land because it breaches restrictive covenants.
1. At first hearing defendant said that he was unaware about all those letters(letters were sent to him and his partner who is owner of parked caravan) and he got a court docs 2 days before the date of hearing.
As well, defendant refused to settle a case at that hearing because he represented himself and said he need to discuss it with lawyer.
2. Then Judge ordered to prepare Defence within a month.
3. Defendant failed to serve Defence in time and I requested Default Judgment.
4. After request of default judgment Defendant prepared his Defence where rejected all claim and insisted that he is wrong person as house is tenanted out and he doesn't control it.
5. Then I have requested Interim injunction, as defendant's tenants were still parking a car on disputed land.
6. At Interim Injunction hearing Defendant came with barrister and solicitor and reply to interim and request set aside default judgment and asked the time to prep amended defence.
7. I signed a concent order and let Def to set aside default judgment. As well, court refused to consider interim injunction due to volume of documents(at that moment we have a lot of documents including PoC, interim application, photo evidences and etc.) and set up full day hearing to consider our application.
8. Defendant sent me a two offer: first offer - drop the case and second offer - drop the case of pay me some amount which is less then my legal cost. As well they threaten me - if I decline an offer, then I will pay 25K likely legal costs in this lawsuite.
9. I didn't reply on this offers and just waited for a final amended Defence.
10. In the Defence it was stated: claim should be misconceived. I sue a wrong person. House is tenanted out and owner don't know about a problem. And now all tenants was notified about dispute and stopped parking(caravan was removed before first hearing). As well, Def stated that former owner of our house gave permission to park and neighbourhod changed. But it is an untrue, because I have phoned a former owner and he didn't give such permission. As well, I have signed Property Infromation Form with owners sign that he didn't give permission which change a property or affects it.
11. My point that injunction should be granted because defendant was breaching covenants and stopped just after interim injunction application. As well, their parking was creating serious obstruction(turning area is less then stated in local planning regulation, I have less then 6 meter behind my driveway and it is difficult to drive off when another car is parked on disputed land)
12. Now I have 2 week before the allocated hearing. And now, my barrister has written to me a letter where informed that defendant's solicitor contacted to him and express wishes to settle a case - "DROP HANDS". Because we have a high rist to lose a case and got financial risk to pay all his legal coast with is more than 10k. Their point: defendant don't live at house, tenants stopped parking, the sign "NO parking" was erecetd on his fence. Thus, we have no grounds to ask inetrim injunction and recover our legal cost(which is about 6k).
Now, I am really surprised:
Why Defendant solicitor contacted with my barrister not to me? Is it ethical?
Why my barrister didn't suggest to make an offer to Defendant under the Part 36. I just only now understood that offer under Part 36 would be most advantageous.
If someone have a chance to ready this lengthy story and could give an opinion whether I really have such high risk to lose a case and pay Def's cost? Or Defendant's solicitor is trying to threaten me and make me to drop the case without paying any cost.
What I have now: I spent a money, started a claim and have no any "insuranse" that Defendant wouldn't begin to park again. If I "drop hands", iI will never able to arise this issue and prevent it.
I have a doubt, that my barrister do everything in my interests.
I would be grateful for any unbiased view on the situation.
p.s I work with barrister under Direct access without solicitor. Defendant has solcicitor and barrister(really expencive).
I am claimant and started my case against neighbours.
Matter of dispute: defendant, particularly his tenants, were parking the cars on the their land and partially on our land(one caravan on driveway and one car - behind). The both parcels of land is under restrictive covenants and must be free all the time. Before starting a claim It was written several latter to the Defendant but no reply was recieved. Some tenants has lived in his house and it is clear that they got all those letters but didn't want to reply and remove his caravan(which belongs to the owner's girlfriend) from the driveway.
The next: I have started a claim against owner and requeseted injunction to prohibit parking on disputed land because it breaches restrictive covenants.
1. At first hearing defendant said that he was unaware about all those letters(letters were sent to him and his partner who is owner of parked caravan) and he got a court docs 2 days before the date of hearing.
As well, defendant refused to settle a case at that hearing because he represented himself and said he need to discuss it with lawyer.
2. Then Judge ordered to prepare Defence within a month.
3. Defendant failed to serve Defence in time and I requested Default Judgment.
4. After request of default judgment Defendant prepared his Defence where rejected all claim and insisted that he is wrong person as house is tenanted out and he doesn't control it.
5. Then I have requested Interim injunction, as defendant's tenants were still parking a car on disputed land.
6. At Interim Injunction hearing Defendant came with barrister and solicitor and reply to interim and request set aside default judgment and asked the time to prep amended defence.
7. I signed a concent order and let Def to set aside default judgment. As well, court refused to consider interim injunction due to volume of documents(at that moment we have a lot of documents including PoC, interim application, photo evidences and etc.) and set up full day hearing to consider our application.
8. Defendant sent me a two offer: first offer - drop the case and second offer - drop the case of pay me some amount which is less then my legal cost. As well they threaten me - if I decline an offer, then I will pay 25K likely legal costs in this lawsuite.
9. I didn't reply on this offers and just waited for a final amended Defence.
10. In the Defence it was stated: claim should be misconceived. I sue a wrong person. House is tenanted out and owner don't know about a problem. And now all tenants was notified about dispute and stopped parking(caravan was removed before first hearing). As well, Def stated that former owner of our house gave permission to park and neighbourhod changed. But it is an untrue, because I have phoned a former owner and he didn't give such permission. As well, I have signed Property Infromation Form with owners sign that he didn't give permission which change a property or affects it.
11. My point that injunction should be granted because defendant was breaching covenants and stopped just after interim injunction application. As well, their parking was creating serious obstruction(turning area is less then stated in local planning regulation, I have less then 6 meter behind my driveway and it is difficult to drive off when another car is parked on disputed land)
12. Now I have 2 week before the allocated hearing. And now, my barrister has written to me a letter where informed that defendant's solicitor contacted to him and express wishes to settle a case - "DROP HANDS". Because we have a high rist to lose a case and got financial risk to pay all his legal coast with is more than 10k. Their point: defendant don't live at house, tenants stopped parking, the sign "NO parking" was erecetd on his fence. Thus, we have no grounds to ask inetrim injunction and recover our legal cost(which is about 6k).
Now, I am really surprised:
Why Defendant solicitor contacted with my barrister not to me? Is it ethical?
Why my barrister didn't suggest to make an offer to Defendant under the Part 36. I just only now understood that offer under Part 36 would be most advantageous.
If someone have a chance to ready this lengthy story and could give an opinion whether I really have such high risk to lose a case and pay Def's cost? Or Defendant's solicitor is trying to threaten me and make me to drop the case without paying any cost.
What I have now: I spent a money, started a claim and have no any "insuranse" that Defendant wouldn't begin to park again. If I "drop hands", iI will never able to arise this issue and prevent it.
I have a doubt, that my barrister do everything in my interests.
I would be grateful for any unbiased view on the situation.
p.s I work with barrister under Direct access without solicitor. Defendant has solcicitor and barrister(really expencive).
