Tweet
As some of you may know, I have an upcoming court case with the above.
Are there confirmed cases of where Drydens have filed their witness statement with the court well past the 14 days allowed?
The Claimant has now stated in their witness statement that the inclusion of the CCA 1974 was a mistake - being that this comes after my own witness statement/evidence bundle was sent to the court (which was within the 14 day window).
I do intend to make it clear to the court that the claimant have tried to mislead me and the court - in that they've had sufficient opportunity to change the claim and have never made their intentions/argument clear until after the deadline had elapsed.
However, they're citing Law of Property 1925 (I've already noticed anomalies in their NoA assertion) - no, I never got any kind of NoA from the OC.
Revised Particulars of Claim have not been enclosed in their evidence bundle - it's in statement form only.
Are there confirmed cases of where Drydens have filed their witness statement with the court well past the 14 days allowed?
The Claimant has now stated in their witness statement that the inclusion of the CCA 1974 was a mistake - being that this comes after my own witness statement/evidence bundle was sent to the court (which was within the 14 day window).
I do intend to make it clear to the court that the claimant have tried to mislead me and the court - in that they've had sufficient opportunity to change the claim and have never made their intentions/argument clear until after the deadline had elapsed.
However, they're citing Law of Property 1925 (I've already noticed anomalies in their NoA assertion) - no, I never got any kind of NoA from the OC.
Revised Particulars of Claim have not been enclosed in their evidence bundle - it's in statement form only.
