Thread: help needed please! what next?

Received letter from local court with hearing date for Oct 1st for hearing of strike out issue, A&L objected to Judge wanting to strike out and put in a 3 page letter by fax to the court -(I had to ask for a copy from court).

A&L gives a point by point argument main bits - The Defence sets out a valid Defence as matter of law. A party who has a bona fide Defence in fact and law, and is able in good faith to sign a statement of truth, is entitled to pro9ceed with its case. Those requirements have been met here, and there is therefore no basis for the Court to make an Order suggesting that the Defence should be struck out.

They raise the case of Berwick v Lloyds TSB bank and included a copy of the judgment (not to me)

The Court bases its Order on assumption that the Defendant has settled all previous claims of similar nature. this assumption is false and there is no evidence before the Court upon which such an assumption can be made. Even if it had settled all previous claims its basically saying each cas on its own merits etc.

Court must decide cases solely on evidence received in the case, produced by both parties and not on his own recent searches or personal assumptions. Saying this was broken in Court order of 9th July. No factual basis for courts assumption that Defendant has settled all previous claims of a similar nature (the all was underlined) and that there is no such evidence from the Claimant.

Court asked for Defendant to file a statement setting out list of all claims it has pursued to trial and all claims it has settled of a similar nature the that brought about by the Claimant. They say they are unable to do that because of client confidentiality and quoted data protection act 1998 and that the claimant has no entitlement to seek details of defendants other customers and in particular those other customers who have been unable to run their current account without incurring unauthorised overdraft fees.

Likewise for the court the details of other customers sought by the courts order of 9th July is not relevant to the matters in issue in this claim.

The material being sought appears to be material for the courts own purposes in seeking of the courts own volition to justify a strike out of this claim without hearing the merits of the arguments as a matter of law. It is objectionable on that basis.

Hi Skyrocket - this is a slightly different tack that A&L are doing, I didn't get to the 'win' stage, I assume they will use a similar letter for your friend. I'm carrying on whatever. Suggest that your friend ring the court and see if they can do anything or give advice as they gave the 14 day time limit.

Not sure but I think it's the magical 14 days from issue.