Tweet
This is the completed AQ N149 for his personal account with HSBC and is ready was hand delivered to court on Monday.
xxxxx -v- HSBC BANK
In the xxxxx County Court
Claim No: xxxxxxx
N149 ALLOCATION QUESTIONNAIRE (CONTINUED)
Section G – Other Information
The Claimant respectfully requests that an order may be made as follows:
1. That the Defence be struck out as it is an abuse of process, pursuant to rule 3.4(2)(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules ,on the basis that the Defendant has filed a template defence then subsequently settled each and every other claim of this nature.
Since May 2006, I am aware of over 100 claims of this nature in which the Defendant has filed an acknowledgement of service, then a Defence, then an allocation questionnaire, then has breached the order for pre-hearing directions, then has finally settled without liability shortly in advance of the hearing or trial.
A sample list of similar claims, including their claim numbers, are attached (attachment 1B).
It is submitted that the Defendant’s litigation strategy is flagrantly abusive of the public resource, and further, contrary to almost all of the Overriding Objectives of the Civil Procedure Rules. It is respectfully submitted that the Defendant will continue to conduct litigation in this manner for as long as it is allowed to do so with impunity.
Please find attached a copy of an order made by Lincoln County Court (attachment 1C) in at least 10 cases similar to my own involving various high street banks, including HSBC PLC - the defendant. The Court considered the authority of Mullen-v-Hackney London Borough Council (1997)2 A11ER 906 to be relevant. If this Honourable Court also considers this authority relevant, I would respectfully request that the Court applies its special knowledge of the Defendant’s notorious and well established conduct in similar cases when considering directions/order in the present case. Please find attached the case to which I refer. (attachment 1D)
Please find enclosed a further example relating to a claim numbered 6QZxxxx
at Willesden County Court where upon the District Judge struck out the Defendant’s Defence as they had failed to comply with an earlier directions order. The Court also ordered Judgment in favour of the Claimant. I would add that, in this example, the Defendant HFC Bank Ltd T/A G M Card is a group company of HSBC Bank PLC, the latter being the Defendant in the current action being brought to Court.(attachment 1E)
2. In the alternative, should the Court not be minded to strike out the defence, and if the claim is to proceed to allocation, the Claimant respectfully suggests that special directions may be made as per the attached draft order (attachment 2A).
I believe the proposed directions will further the Overriding Objectives in that they identify the most fundamental issues in dispute and will allow them to be assessed in advance of the hearing so that this claim may proceed justly and expeditiously.
I would aver that if the Defendant has the serious intention of defending this claim at trial, as is indicated by its defence, that it is incumbent upon it to disclose such information. Further, the proposed directions are now routinely ordered in claims of this nature in the Mercantile Court in London, as well as small claims track cases in Leicester, Derby, Chesterfield, Willesden and Mansfield County Courts.
These issues are not complex; as the law relating to contractual penalties is long established, I believe the outstanding issues to be of fact and not of Law, and, inter alia, whether the money levied by the Defendant in respect of its customer’s contractual breaches exceed their actual costs incurred. I am happy to pay their actual costs and I am surprised that the Defendant did not counterclaim for these, because I would have paid them without argument.
However, the continuing problem is (in common with many other similar cases being brought to Court by other bank customers) that the banks refuse to reveal
the details of their penalty-charging regime. As the banks have a fiduciary duty towards their customers, they have a duty to deal straightforwardly and in utmost good faith.
Accordingly, I would respectfully request that this claim be allocated to the small claims track, and I estimate that the hearing of the claim should last no longer than one hour
xxxxx -v- HSBC BANK
In the xxxxx County Court
Claim No: xxxxxxx
N149 ALLOCATION QUESTIONNAIRE (CONTINUED)
Section G – Other Information
The Claimant respectfully requests that an order may be made as follows:
1. That the Defence be struck out as it is an abuse of process, pursuant to rule 3.4(2)(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules ,on the basis that the Defendant has filed a template defence then subsequently settled each and every other claim of this nature.
Since May 2006, I am aware of over 100 claims of this nature in which the Defendant has filed an acknowledgement of service, then a Defence, then an allocation questionnaire, then has breached the order for pre-hearing directions, then has finally settled without liability shortly in advance of the hearing or trial.
A sample list of similar claims, including their claim numbers, are attached (attachment 1B).
It is submitted that the Defendant’s litigation strategy is flagrantly abusive of the public resource, and further, contrary to almost all of the Overriding Objectives of the Civil Procedure Rules. It is respectfully submitted that the Defendant will continue to conduct litigation in this manner for as long as it is allowed to do so with impunity.
Please find attached a copy of an order made by Lincoln County Court (attachment 1C) in at least 10 cases similar to my own involving various high street banks, including HSBC PLC - the defendant. The Court considered the authority of Mullen-v-Hackney London Borough Council (1997)2 A11ER 906 to be relevant. If this Honourable Court also considers this authority relevant, I would respectfully request that the Court applies its special knowledge of the Defendant’s notorious and well established conduct in similar cases when considering directions/order in the present case. Please find attached the case to which I refer. (attachment 1D)
Please find enclosed a further example relating to a claim numbered 6QZxxxx
at Willesden County Court where upon the District Judge struck out the Defendant’s Defence as they had failed to comply with an earlier directions order. The Court also ordered Judgment in favour of the Claimant. I would add that, in this example, the Defendant HFC Bank Ltd T/A G M Card is a group company of HSBC Bank PLC, the latter being the Defendant in the current action being brought to Court.(attachment 1E)
2. In the alternative, should the Court not be minded to strike out the defence, and if the claim is to proceed to allocation, the Claimant respectfully suggests that special directions may be made as per the attached draft order (attachment 2A).
I believe the proposed directions will further the Overriding Objectives in that they identify the most fundamental issues in dispute and will allow them to be assessed in advance of the hearing so that this claim may proceed justly and expeditiously.
I would aver that if the Defendant has the serious intention of defending this claim at trial, as is indicated by its defence, that it is incumbent upon it to disclose such information. Further, the proposed directions are now routinely ordered in claims of this nature in the Mercantile Court in London, as well as small claims track cases in Leicester, Derby, Chesterfield, Willesden and Mansfield County Courts.
These issues are not complex; as the law relating to contractual penalties is long established, I believe the outstanding issues to be of fact and not of Law, and, inter alia, whether the money levied by the Defendant in respect of its customer’s contractual breaches exceed their actual costs incurred. I am happy to pay their actual costs and I am surprised that the Defendant did not counterclaim for these, because I would have paid them without argument.
However, the continuing problem is (in common with many other similar cases being brought to Court by other bank customers) that the banks refuse to reveal
the details of their penalty-charging regime. As the banks have a fiduciary duty towards their customers, they have a duty to deal straightforwardly and in utmost good faith.
Accordingly, I would respectfully request that this claim be allocated to the small claims track, and I estimate that the hearing of the claim should last no longer than one hour
Comment