Claimant (cabot financial (uk) limited) missed filing date with the court

[frostyboy21]

Evening all,

I was looking for some support.

I have had an ongoing claim with CABOT which went to a hearing by telephone on 15 November last year. Attending this it was adjourned to be re-listed for an in-person hearing with a time estimate of 90 mins.

It was ordered by the court that by no later than 6 December 2022 the claimant must file with the court a witness statement to address:-
a) How and when this claim became stayed; and
b) The evidence as to why the stay should be lifted.

I was then ordered to: By no later than 4th January 2023 the defendant shall file with the court and serve upon the claimant any witness statements he relies on in opposition to the Claimant's application.

Having heard nothing in relation to the claimant's witness statement I had nothing to respond to.

Then on 7th February 2023 the hearing date arrived for 24th April 2023 in Norwich.

I emailed the court on 13th March asking if they had had any statements that had not been passed to me and got no reply. I chased again last week and they said they hadn't and if I wanted to postpone the hearing to file the N244 and cover costs. I decided to call Mortimer Clarke who is dealing with the claim to ask if they intended to attend, mainly as I will be travelling from Northumberland and was unable to get an answer from the operative, who passed on to the legal team. 2 hours later I received the attached from them.

From my position I believe that the sale of the debt to Cabot should not have happened as I had already settled with a previous debt recovery company. The lack of correspondence from Capital One until the assignment to Cabot also suggests that they felt the account was settled. I made a reduction of 50% to the debt amount with them, which can be seen in the balance reduction. There are some factual inaccuracies in the original witness statement. The date on the default notice was actually 29/11/2009, which is 14 years ago now.

I have never admitted liability for this outstanding debt but due to the time that has passed I don't have statements etc to support proof.

I just wondered if anyone can give any advice on whether their latest witness statement is admissable. Whether I should attend court given the significant costs of doing so including a day off, travel and also an overnight stay. Or should I try to settle to avoid any further costs.

Thanks in advance as always.

Matt

[R0b]

Hi,

It is difficult to really give you any firm assistance without seeing the full evidence on both sides and even more difficult with a hearing date coming up in the next 7 days.

I have some questions below but I wanted to say that perhaps it was a little naďve of you to call Mortimer Clarke because you've now given them the opportunity to have the stay lifted and summary judgment granted. Never, ever help the Claimant and by you calling them you alluded to the fact they have not complied with the court order and so late compliance is better than no compliance. All you needed to do was contact the court, verify that no witness statement was provided on time and then wait until the hearing, point out to the judge and seek dismissal of the claim for non-compliance which, had Cabot not turned up at all, would have been a likely outcome. In summary, it is not your job to do their job so follow the rules of the court orders and the civil procedure rules and do not help the other side unless you are told to do so by the court otherwise you get yourself into predicaments such as these.

So, my questions are below and would be helpful if you could answer them as fully as you can.

1. The letter you have uploaded, is this all that Mortimer Clarke have supplied to the court as their compliance with the order explaining why the claim has been stayed and evidence why it should be lifted? Is there no witness statement with evidence and exhibits provided?

2. In the letter is says that Cabot decided to freeze all applications and proceedings during covid. Did Cabot inform you of that decision?

3. You say the default notice date is 29/11/2009, is there a record of that or is that your recollection? If there is a different default date that Cabot are alleging, what date is that?

4. According to the order from the court, was the filing of your witness statement subject on receiving Cabot's witness statement? So for example, did it say something like Upon the Claimant filing and serving the witness statement, the Defendant shall then file and serve their witness statement by ...

[frostyboy21]

Good morning,

Thanks so much for your reply.

I am kicking myself for contacting them, it was really to avoid a 10-hour round trip from Northumberland and other costs but indeed have just made them aware of the fact they have not provided information when required. Incredibly naive and ill-considered.

I have answered your questions, and I have attached the forms for consideration:

1. The letter is sent with the existing claim pack from the last hearing in November that was adjourned, and a claimant statement of costs.

2. I never received the communication they included in the hearing pack, but it is in there dated 1st March 2022, page 49 in the attached pack.

3. Yes the is a record of the default notice on page 22 of the pack. Not sure what date they are referring to. I do think they just mistyped it.

4. According to the order from the court, was the filing of your witness statement subject on receiving Cabot's witness statement?
It states. By no later than 4 January 2023 the Defendant shall file with the Court and serve upon the Claimant any witness statements and documents he relies on in opposition to the Claimant's application. I have not sent anything in as was waiting for the application.

I really appreciate your help with this. I was waiting for them to send the witness statement and was then going to engage with a lawyer to run through this but the claimant's witness statement was never received, now I have received it and have little time to turn around before next week's hearing.

I guess the question I have is am I better trying to get to a settlement with a debt recovery company before it goes to court? I am unable to obtain the proof I need for payment and therefore is my word against theirs. The costs are accruing and for a relatively small amount should I cut losses.

Most importantly, I want to avoid anything attached to my credit file which I have worked hard to clean up since these issues, will attending the court case on Monday and being ruled against mean that something will be attached to my file, or will I have an opportunity to make a proposal for settlement?

Kindest Regards

Matt

[R0b]

You should remove the uploads from here as it shows your full name and details and other personal information. Only upload redacted information that doesn't show personal information or you may open yourself up to malicious acts such as identity theft or fraud.

There is a reference in there to say that you made a payment in 2012 for Ł20, what is your response to that?

[ULA]

I have removed the uploads.

[frostyboy21]

Thank you both.

[frostyboy21]

Re the payment for Ł20, I really don't know I am afraid. It was so long ago and I didn't keep the records of payments I made and not sure where payment may have been made from.

Matt

[R0b]

Sorry this is somewhat longwinded but I thought I would try to give some outline as to what I might do if I was in your shoes. I am not able to tell you whether you should try and settle the claim before the hearing or continue to challenge it as that is a decision you need to make, but even if worst case they are granted summary judgment, you still have 1 month to pay the sum in full without incurring a CCJ on your credit file.

Anyway, here's my initial take on the assumption you want to oppose the lifting of the stay and summary judgment.

- The letter sent by Mortimer Clarke is not compliant with the court's order that a witness statement be provided as to why the stay should be lifted. The letter fails entirely to comply with Part 32 of the Civil Procedure Rules including but limited to:

a. The letter is signed as Mortimer Clarke not an individual.
b. There is no statement of truth
c. Non-compliance with a court order requires relief from sanctions in accordance with the Denton Principles (the case of Denton v TH White 2014). The criteria under the Denton Principles are:

i. The court should identify and assess the seriousness and significance of the failure to comply with any rule, practice direction or court order. Note, non-compliance with a court order is generally considered a serious breach even more so where there has been wholesale non-compliance from a law firm who should know the rules inside and out.

ii. The court should consider why the default occurred. The onus is on the defendant to explain why it has decided not to comply with the court order and provide a reasonable explanation. Nothing I've seen so far suggests there is any good reason other than the defendant choosing not to do what the court has asked.

iii. The court should evaluate all of the circumstances of the case so as to deal with the case justly. The lateness of the bundle which you have not seen before less than 7 days before the hearing date you could argue has materially prejudiced you because you have not had enough time to review the material and then be in a position comply with your obligations under the order to file a witness statement opposing the application. The Claimant has had more than enough time to comply and this letter only transpired because you contacted the court to confirm if a witness statement was filed. Any consequence would ordinarily warrant an adjournment at the claimant's expense but this would require the court to re-schedule a hearing and incur additional court resources that are already limited so the court should not indulge anything other than refusing relief from sanctions and dismissing the claim.

- Mortimer Clarke are incorrect in saying that lifting the stay of proceedings is routine and just administrative because there was a court case last year, that said stay of proceedings is deemed a sanction and in turn requires relief from sanctions in accordance with the Denton Principles. It may be that the judge is aware of this case hence why he/she has decided to require a witness statement explaining why the stay should be lifted. Nevertheless, the letter provided by Mortimer Clarke doesn't address any of the requirements of the Denton Principles.

You could argue that in the letter MC have admitted that their defendant did not have all of the relevant at the time they issued the claim and is quite apparent from the very limited particulars described in the claim form which fails to identify the key information and dates related to the agreement and default notice.

Issuing a claim without having the full information and details is considered an abuse of process and there is case law to support that position. The stay of proceedings has also deprived you of potentially the right to rely on a limitation defence. Even if you did make that payment in 2012, the clock of 6 years would have reset and the Claimant admits that it chose to pause all legal proceedings and not to do anything during the COVID pandemic between 2018-2020. Therefore, the debt would have become statute barred in 2018 at the latest when they would have issued a claim, which is an abuse of process in itself and they took advantage to stop the clock and do nothing to your detriment.

To apply for summary judgment, the claimant has to meet the following criteria under the CPR:

- The defendant has no real prospect of success.
- there is no other compelling reason why the case should proceed to trial.

In a nutshell you have to pick holes as to the reasons why the court should hold a full hearing. The arguments will vary depending on the dispute but some examples could be, there are inaccuracies in the claim which need to be investigated at trial, the application requires the court to carry out a mini trial to make a determination however case law has confirmed that summary judgments should not allow for mini trials to be conducted. In your case you could argue there are questions as to how the claimant has compiled the data and information and from what sources which is not mentioned in the witness statement, therefore the claimant could have conjured up these documents itself - that requires further investigation which can only be done at trial, or there is a dispute around the limitation period and whether the claim is statute barred which requires an analysis of the relevant case law thus it is not suitable for summary judgment.

If you are going to argue this and oppose the summary then I think given the very limited time you have, you should at least attempt to do some kind of skeleton argument and file it at court and send it to Mortimer Clarke 48 hours before the hearing. it doesn't need to be greatly detailed but at least give an outline as to why you oppose the application and why the court should not lift the stay and dismiss the claim. Happy to help give you some pointers but you are going to have to put a little effort in and produce some kind of bundle with some case law included. It would also be wise to take a copy of the bundle of documents for the court in cse they don't add it to the file when you submit i.t

[frostyboy21]

Thank you so much for taking the time to provide such a detailed response, it really is appreciated.

I will put some time aside to put together a skeleton argument as you suggested, as I don't just want to buckle to MC, and some pointers would be incredible.

Have a great evening and thanks again.

[frostyboy21]

Good Morning, I have put together a witness statement in response to Mortimer Clarke's using your response as a template, and wondered if you might be able to cast your eye over it and offer some pointers, please. Also whether this singular document is a sufficient bundle or whether there might be further information to add:

Dear Sir,

Reference: Cabot Financial (UK) Limited vs
REF:
Claim No:

I am writing to oppose the lifting of the stay and summary judgment filed by Mortimer Clarke in the Cabot Financial (UK) Limited vs Mr Matthew Frost case, for several reasons.

Firstly, the letter sent by Mortimer Clarke, dated 17^th April 2023, fails to comply with the court's order that a witness statement be provided as to why the stay should be lifted. The letter fails entirely to comply with the requirements of Part 32 of the Civil Procedure Rules, including but not limited to the absence of a statement of truth, and other information. Indeed, the letter is signed by Mortimer Clarke instead of an individual.

Furthermore, non-compliance with a court order requires relief from sanctions in accordance with the Denton Principles (the case of Denton v TH White 2014). In this case, the principles established that non-compliance with a court order is considered a serious breach, particularly when there has been wholesale non-compliance from a law firm that should know the rules inside and out. The court should assess the seriousness and significance of the failure to comply with any rule, practice direction, or court order in accordance with the Denton Principles.

In this case, there is no good reason for the claimant's failure to comply with the court order. It has caused material prejudice to myself, as the defendant because I have not had enough time to review the material and then be in a position to comply with my obligations under the order to file a witness statement opposing the application. There are also further cases to support the importance of complying with the court orders, such as:

• Andrew Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWHC 2355 (QB): This case built on the Mitchell case and provided guidance on the meaning of "good reason" for non-compliance with a court order. The court held that a trivial or insignificant breach would not constitute a good reason.
• Gray v Toner [2019] EWCA Civ 257: This case emphasized the importance of complying with court orders and held that a failure to do so would generally be considered a serious breach. It also clarified that the Denton Principles should be applied when considering relief from sanctions.

The Claimant has had more than enough time to comply, and their letter of 17^th April 2023, has only transpired because I contacted the court to confirm if a witness statement was filed. I am of the belief that anything other than refusing relief from sanctions and dismissing the claim should not be considered, and any consequences would ordinarily warrant an adjournment at the claimant's expense.

In addition, Mortimer Clarke's argument that lifting the stay of proceedings is routine and administrative is incorrect. A court case ruled last year that stay of proceedings is a sanction and requires relief from sanctions in accordance with the Denton Principles. Therefore, the letter provided by Mortimer Clarke, 17^th April 2023. does not address any of the requirements of the Denton Principles.

Thirdly, Mortimer Clarke has admitted that the defendant did not have all the relevant information at the time they issued the claim. Issuing a claim without having full information and details is considered an abuse of process. The stay of proceedings has deprived me of the right to rely on a limitation defense, as the clock of six years would have reset, and the debt would have become statute-barred in 2018 at the latest.

The stay of proceedings has deprived me of the right to rely on a limitation defense. Even if the payment was made in 2012, the clock of six years would have reset, and the debt would have become statute-barred in 2018 at the latest. Mortimer Clarke's decision to pause all legal proceedings during the COVID pandemic between 2018-2020 is an abuse of process, as it took advantage of stopping the clock and doing nothing to the defendant's detriment.

To summarise, there are several inaccuracies in the claim that needs to be investigated further. There are significant concerns surrounding how the claimant has gathered the data and information, which is not addressed in the witness statement. Furthermore, there is a dispute regarding the limitation period and whether the claim is statute-barred, which requires an in-depth analysis of the relevant case law. Given the complexity of these issues, summary judgment is not suitable, and the matter should proceed to trial.

I respectfully request that the court denies Mortimer Clarke's application to lift the stay of proceedings and dismiss the claim.

Yours faithfully,

[echat11]

Frostyboy, It might be an idea to edit personal details, if you can't contact Admin.

[frostyboy21]

Frostyboy, It might be an idea to edit personal details, if you can't contact Admin.

Thanks for spot, dropped wrong copy in. Have a great day.

[R0b]

What you have set out is not a witness statement and it is not a skeleton argument either but I do think you need to provide a bundle to include the relevant cases you are seeking to rely on. I will try to upload an example later but if your hearing is Monday, then you really need to be getting this over to the court by 4pm tomorrow.

You will have to spend some time over the weekend reading up on the cases and getting yourself familiar because don't expect that you won't be challenged or questioned. I can't do everything for you so there may be gaps you need to fill in such as the relevant facts but I'll give you an example of the list of cases you can use and where to access/download them and how to create a bundle as soon as I can.

[frostyboy21]

What you have set out is not a witness statement and it is not a skeleton argument either but I do think you need to provide a bundle to include the relevant cases you are seeking to rely on. I will try to upload an example later but if your hearing is Monday, then you really need to be getting this over to the court by 4pm tomorrow.

You will have to spend some time over the weekend reading up on the cases and getting yourself familiar because don't expect that you won't be challenged or questioned. I can't do everything for you so there may be gaps you need to fill in such as the relevant facts but I'll give you an example of the list of cases you can use and where to access/download them and how to create a bundle as soon as I can.

Thank you. I will take a look at this myself as well and appreciate the quick response. You have done more than enough. Time is not on my side but will ensure that I give some time over the weekend to read the cases.

[frostyboy21]

Good afternoon,

I found a template for a skeleton argument, and have taken a first run through this. I will add more specifics to the case into the document in due course. When able would you be kind enough to cast eyes over, and let me know if this more relevant?:

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT XXXXX
CLAIM NUMBER:
BETWEEN:
CABOT FINANCIAL (UK) LIMITED
-and-
XXXXXXX
SKELETON ARGUMENT OF XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Introduction

I am writing to submit this skeleton argument in opposition to the application filed by Mortimer Clarke to lift the stay and grant summary judgment in the Cabot Financial (UK) Limited vs xxxxxxxx case.

The primary reason for my opposition is that the letter filed by Mortimer Clarke on 17th April 2023 fails to comply with the court's order to provide a witness statement as to why the stay should be lifted, by 6 December 2022.

Non-compliance with a court order is a serious breach that requires relief from sanctions in accordance with the Denton Principles. The case of Denton v TH White 2014 establishes that the court should assess the seriousness and significance of the failure to comply with any rule, practice direction, or court order.

In this case, the failure to provide a witness statement has caused material prejudice to me as the defendant, and the non-compliance is entirely without any good reason.

In support of my argument, I will rely on the following documents and authorities, which are provided as part of the hearing bundle:

1. The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) Part 32: Witness Evidence
2. Denton v TH White 2014 EWCA Civ 906
3. Andrew Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWHC 2355 (QB)
4. Gray v Toner [2019] EWCA Civ 257

The Issues

1. Compliance with Court Orders and Relief from Sanctions
   1. Whether Mortimer Clarke's failure to comply with the court's order for a witness statement justifies relief from sanctions.
   2. Whether the absence of a statement of truth and other information in Mortimer Clarke's letter constitutes a serious breach under the Denton Principles
   3. Whether there is good reason for Mortimer Clarke's non-compliance with the court order and if it caused material prejudice to the defendant
2. Stay of Proceedings
   1. Whether the lifting of the stay of proceedings is routine and administrative
   2. Whether a court case ruling from last year requires relief from sanctions in accordance with the Denton Principles for the stay of proceedings
   3. Whether the letter provided by Mortimer Clarke addresses the requirements of the Denton Principles
3. Abuse of Process
   1. Whether Mortimer Clarke's admission that they did not have all the relevant information at the time of issuing the claim constitutes an abuse of process
   2. Whether the stay of proceedings during the COVID pandemic between 2018-2020 is an abuse of the process
   3. Whether the defendant's right to rely on a limitation defense was deprived due to the stay of proceedings
4. Summary Judgment
   1. Whether the summary judgment is suitable given the complexity of the issues
   2. Whether the matter should proceed to trial instead of summary judgment

The Facts

1. Mortimer Clarke's letter, dated 17th April 2023, fails to comply with the court's order that a witness statement be provided as to why the stay should be lifted. The letter is also signed by Mortimer Clarke instead of an individual, which is a requirement of Part 32 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
2. Non-compliance with a court order requires relief from sanctions in accordance with the Denton Principles.
3. There is no good reason for the claimant's failure to comply with the court order. It has caused material prejudice to the defendant, Mr xxxxxxxxx, as he has not had enough time to review the material and file a witness statement opposing the application as per the court order.
4. The importance of complying with court orders is emphasised in the following cases: Andrew Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWHC 2355 (QB) and Gray v Toner [2019] EWCA Civ 257.
5. Mortimer Clarke's argument that lifting the stay of proceedings is routine and administrative is incorrect. A court case ruled last year that a stay of proceedings is deemed a sanction and requires relief from sanctions in accordance with the Denton Principles.
6. Mortimer Clarke admitted in their letter dated 17^th April 2023 that they did not have all the relevant information at the time they issued the claim, which is considered an abuse of process.
7. The stay of proceedings has deprived Mr XXXXXXX of the right to rely on a limitation defence, as the debt would have become statute-barred in 2018 at the latest.
8. The COVID pandemic between 2018-2020 is not a valid reason to pause all legal proceedings, as it took advantage of stopping the clock and did nothing to the defendant's detriment.
9. The complexity of the issues raised in the case requires an in-depth analysis of the relevant case law, and summary judgment is not suitable.

The Law

1. Non-compliance with Court Order
   1. Part 32 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires a statement of truth, among other information, to be included in a witness statement. The letter provided by Mortimer Clarke dated 17th April 2023, fails to comply with this requirement.
      1. Part 32 of the Civil Procedure Rules states: "Where a witness statement is required by a rule, practice direction, or court order, the statement must comply with the requirements of this Part and any relevant practice direction." (CPR 32.4)
   2. In accordance with the Denton Principles (Denton v TH White 2014), non-compliance with a court order is considered a serious breach, particularly when there has been wholesale non-compliance from a law firm that should know the rules inside and out.
      1. The Denton Principles state that: "Non-compliance with rules, practice directions, and court orders is to be regarded as a serious matter. If a party has failed to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order, it will be necessary for the party at fault to persuade the court to grant relief from the sanction." (Denton v TH White [2014] EWCA Civ 906, para. 24)
   3. In this case, there is no good reason for the claimant's failure to comply with the court order. As the court held in Andrew Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWHC 2355 (QB), “a trivial or insignificant breach would not constitute a good reason”. The failure of Mortimer Clarke to provide a witness statement in compliance with the court's order has caused material prejudice to me, as the defendant and relief from sanctions should not be granted.
   4. Gray v Toner [2019] EWCA Civ 257 emphasized the importance of complying with court orders and held that a failure to do so would generally be considered a serious breach. It also clarified that the Denton Principles should be applied when considering relief from sanctions.

1. Lifting of Stay of Proceedings
   1. Lifting the stay of proceedings is not routine or administrative and requires relief from sanctions in accordance with the Denton Principles.
      1. "It is well-established that the imposition of a stay on proceedings is a sanction, and that the lifting of such a stay is subject to the principles relating to relief from sanctions." (Times Travel (UK) Ltd v Pakistan International Airlines Corporation [2019] EWHC 3397 (Ch), para. 25)
   2. The claimant’s letter of 17th April 2023 does not address any of the requirements of the Denton Principles.
      1. The first stage of the Denton test requires the court to consider the significance and seriousness of the breach. The second stage requires the court to consider why the default occurred. The third stage requires the court to consider all the circumstances of the case so as to enable it to deal justly with the application, including factors (a) and (b) set out in CPR 3.9(1)." - Denton and Others v TH White Ltd and another; Decadent Vapours Ltd v Bevan and others; Utilise TDS Ltd v Davies and others [2014] EWCA Civ 906

1. Abuse of Process
   1. Issuing a claim without having full information and details is considered an abuse of process.
      1. "It is an abuse of process to start proceedings if there is insufficient material available to support the claim, or if the claim is bound to fail." (Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1, para. 53)

3.2 The stay of proceedings has deprived the defendant of the right to rely on a limitation defence, and the debt would have become statute-barred in 2018 at the latest.
3.3 Mortimer Clarke's decision to pause all legal proceedings during the COVID pandemic between 2018-2020 is an abuse of process, as it took advantage of stopping the clock and doing nothing to the defendant's detriment.

1. Limitation Period
   1. There is a dispute regarding the limitation period and whether the claim is statute-barred, which requires an in-depth analysis of the relevant case law.
      1. "It is trite law that in all actions for the recovery of money or damages, the Limitation Law applies as a statute of repose and an action which is statute-barred is one which the statute of limitation bars and which no court has any jurisdiction to entertain." - Per J. Obaseki in the case of Okereke v. Nwachukwu (2004) 4 NWLR (Pt.863) 545 at 578, para. D.

1. Submissions
   1. The letter sent by Mortimer Clarke, dated 17th April 2023, fails to comply with the court's order that a witness statement be provided as to why the stay should be lifted.
      1. Mortimer Clarke's letter does not comply with the requirements of Part 32 of the Civil Procedure Rules, including but not limited to the absence of a statement of truth, and other information.
      2. The letter is signed by Mortimer Clarke instead of an individual, which is contrary to the court's order.
      3. Non-compliance with a court order requires relief from sanctions in accordance with the Denton Principles.
   2. Non-compliance with a court order requires relief from sanctions in accordance with the Denton Principles (the case of Denton v TH White 2014).
      1. Non-compliance with a court order is considered a serious breach, particularly when there has been wholesale non-compliance from a law firm that should know the rules inside and out.
      2. The court should assess the seriousness and significance of the failure to comply with any rule, practice direction, or court order in accordance with the Denton Principles.
      3. There is no good reason for the claimant's failure to comply with the court order, and it has caused material prejudice to the defendant.
   3. The importance of complying with court orders is supported by other cases, such as:
      1. Andrew Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWHC 2355 (QB): A trivial or insignificant breach would not constitute a good reason for non-compliance with a court order.
      2. Gray v Toner [2019] EWCA Civ 257: A failure to comply with a court order would generally be considered a serious breach, and the Denton Principles should be applied when considering relief from sanctions.
   4. The letter provided by Mortimer Clarke, on 17th April 2023, does not address any of the requirements of the Denton Principles.
      1. Mortimer Clarke's argument that lifting the stay of proceedings is routine and administrative is incorrect.
      2. A court case ruled last year that stay of proceedings is a sanction and requires relief from sanctions in accordance with the Denton Principles.
   5. Mortimer Clarke has admitted that the defendant did not have all the relevant information at the time they issued the claim.
      1. Issuing a claim without having full information and details is considered an abuse of process.
      2. The stay of proceedings has deprived the defendant of the right to rely on a limitation defense, as the debt would have become statute-barred in 2018 at the latest.
      3. Mortimer Clarke's decision to pause all legal proceedings during the COVID pandemic between 2018-2020 is an abuse of process, as it took advantage of stopping the clock and doing nothing to the defendant's detriment.
   6. Given the complexity of these issues, summary judgment is not suitable, and the matter should proceed to trial.
      1. There are several inaccuracies in the claim that needs to be investigated further.
      2. There are significant concerns surrounding how the claimant has gathered the data and information, which is not addressed in the witness statement.
      3. There is a dispute regarding the limitation period and whether the claim is statute-barred, which requires an in-depth analysis of the relevant case law.

6. Conclusion

Based on the above arguments, Mortimer Clarke's application to lift the stay and grant summary judgment in the Cabot Financial (UK) Limited vs XXXXXXX case should be dismissed. The failure to comply with the court's order to provide a witness statement justifies relief from sanctions in accordance with the Denton Principles, and Mortimer Clarke's non-compliance is without any good reason, causing material prejudice to the defendant.

Furthermore, the issues raised in the case are complex and require an in-depth analysis of the relevant case law, making summary judgment unsuitable. Mortimer Clarke's admission that they did not have all the relevant information at the time of issuing the claim constitutes an abuse of process, and the stay of proceedings has deprived XXXXXXXX of the right to rely on a limitation defence. Therefore, the stay should remain in place, and the matter should proceed to trial.

Considering the above, I respectfully ask the court to dismiss Mortimer Clarke's application and grant the relief sought by the defendant, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXX
Defendant
20^th April 2023



Links to supporting documents mentioned through Skeleton Argument:

1. The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) Part 32: Witness Evidence: https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pr...l/rules/part32
2. Denton v TH White 2014 EWCA Civ 906: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/906.html
3. Andrew Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWHC 2355 (QB): https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/2355.html
4. Gray v Toner [2019] EWCA Civ 257: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/257.html
5. Times Travel (UK) Ltd v Pakistan International Airlines Corporation [2019] EWHC 3397 (Ch),
6. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2019/3397.html
7. Decadent Vapours Ltd v Bevan and others - https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2020/4.html
8. Utilise TDS Ltd v Davies and others [2014] EWCA Civ 906 - https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/906.html
9. Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] - https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2002/22.html
10. Okereke v. Nwachukwu (2004) 4 NWLR (Pt.863) - https://nigerialii.org/ng/judgment/s...ourt/2004/14-0