Thread: Jax1964 v Abbey - Practice Direction to CPR23

I have gone through all the normal procedures with my Abbey claim.

My claim was submitted to Court. I rec'd defence & aq. AQ returned. Nothing any different to anyone else's Abbey claims.

Now I have received my notice of allocation.

However this is different to other ones I have had. It says.

The Reason for the hearing is as follows:
The issues of law raised in this claim make it unsuitable for allocation to small claims track. The court is preparing to allocate to fast track.

The hearing will be a telephone hearing. The parties must follow the Practice Direction CRP23 (I assume this is CPR23) at paragraph 6. If parties cannot agree as to who is responsible under the Practice Direction for making arrangements with British Telecom (or other supplier) arrangements must be made by the Claimant. The Applicant or Claimant must file no later than 4:00 pm on the last working day before the hearing a case summary not exceeding 500 words and draft directions agreed if possible, togather with copies of any documents necessary for the hearing but not already on file.

I have searched CPR23 and found:

TELEPHONE HEARINGS

6.1 The court may order than an application or part of an application be dealt with by a telephone hearing.
6.1A The applicant should indicate on his application notice if he seeks a court order under paragraph 6.1. Where he has not done so but nevertheless wishes to seek an order the request should be made as early as possible.
6.2 An order under 6.1 will not normally be made unless every party entitled to be given notice of the application and to be heard at the hearing has consented to the order.
6.3 (1) Where a party entitled to be heard at the hearing of the application is acting in person, the court –
(a) may not make an order under 6.1 except on condition that arrangements will be made for the party acting in person to be attended at the telephone hearing by a responsible person to whom the party acting in person is known and who can confirm to the court the identity of the party; and
(b) may not give effect to an order under 6.1 unless the party acting in person is accompanied by a responsible person who at the commencement of the hearing confirms to the court the identity of the party.
(2) The ‘responsible person’ may be a barrister, solicitor, legal executive, doctor, clergyman, police officer, prison officer or other person of comparable status.
(3) If the court makes an order under 6.1 it will give any directions necessary for the telephone hearing.
6.4 No representative of a party to an application being heard by telephone may attend the judge in person while the application is being heard unless the other party to the application has agreed that he may do so.
6.5 If an application is to be heard by telephone the following directions will apply, subject to any direction to the contrary:
(1) The applicant's legal representative is responsible for arranging the telephone conference for precisely the time fixed by the court. The telecommunications provider used must be one on the approved panel of service providers (see Her Majesty's Courts Service website at www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk).
(2) He must tell the operator the telephone numbers of all those participating in the conference call and the sequence in which they are to be called.
(3) It is the responsibility of the applicant’s legal representative to ascertain from all the other parties whether they have instructed counsel and, if so the identity of counsel, and whether the legal representative and counsel will be on the same or different telephone numbers.
(4) The sequence in which they are to be called will be:
(a) the applicant’s legal representative and (if on a different number) his counsel,
(b) the legal representative (and counsel) for all other parties, and
(c) the judge.
(5) Omitted
(6) Each speaker is to remain on the line after being called by the operator setting up the conference call. The call may be 2 or 3 minutes before the time fixed for the application.
(7) When the judge has been connected the applicant’s legal representative (or his counsel) will introduce the parties in the usual way.
8 If the use of a ‘speakerphone’ by any party causes the judge or any other party any difficulty in hearing what is said the judge may require that party to use a hand held telephone.
(9) The telephone charges debited to the account of the party initiating the conference call will be treated as part of the costs of the application.


Can anyone give me some advice?

Does this mean I am responsible for arranging the hearing or Abbey? If me how do I go about it?

With regards to this statement 'The Applicant or Claimant must file no later than 4:00 pm on the last working day before the hearing a case summary not exceeding 500 words and draft directions agreed if possible, togather with copies of any documents necessary for the hearing but not already on file.' What do I need to submit for a case summary and draft directions ect?

Any help would be really appreciated.


Similar Threads:

• Jax1964 v Citi ***SETTLED***
• Jax1964 T/A account v Abbey (Fast Track)
• jax1964 v Beneficial ***SETTLED IN FULL***
• DPAReq-Asking 4 ID is this common practice?

Many thanks for that Karnevil. If the above is the Case summary what are draft directions?
Where it says 'together with copies of any documents necessary for the hearing but not already on file' what sort of documents would they be referring to? The telephone hearing is on 25 Jan 07 so got time to get it all sorted, but time flies and before you know it, you're there.
Fingers crossed Abbey will settle before then, but I wont take anything for granted.

Jax

Sorry you beat me to it with the draft directions. Thanks for the info.

Jax

I think you have answered the questions Karn.
Naturally it should be remembered that all parties must be in agreement to this.
If you think that it may not be a good idea then you dont have to agree to it.
There is a more comprehensive outline of this in one of the Hmcs information booklets.
There is also more info on the HMCS website.

Thanks for your advice guys.

I rang the Court on Thursaday for some advise on arranging telephone hearing, but they said it was a mistake and Abbey should be arranging it. The amendment came through this morning.
It has changed from:
The hearing will be a telephone hearing. The parties must follow the Practice Direction CRP23 at paragraph 6. If parties cannot agree as to who is responsible under the Practice Direction for making arrangements with British Telecom (or other supplier) arrangements must be made by the Claimant. The Applicant or Claimant must file no later than 4:00 pm on the last working day before the hearing a case summary not exceeding 500 words and draft directions agreed if possible, togather with copies of any documents necessary for the hearing but not already on file.

to this:

The hearing of this case will take place by way of a telephone conference

The Defendant's Legal representative is ordered to arrange the telephone conference.

Please quote telephone number xxxxxxxx when arranging your telephone conference

Time estimates for the hearing must be accurate as they will not be allowed to over-run. In the event that a time estimate is insufficient then please contact the Court. Please note that time has been allocated for the Judge to read all papers in advance of the hearing.

The Applicant and the Defendant must serve all documents to be relied upon at the hearing no later than pm on the last working day before the hearing.

Please mark all documents served upon the Court for this hearing as 'Telephone Conference on the (date) at (time.'


I obviously still need to send my documents to the Court but so do Abbey now.

Not long to wait to find out it has to be at the Court by 4pm on 24th Jan. Mine of course is all ready.

The Court received nothing from Abbey and they did not arrange the telephone hearing. Will wait and see what the Court says now.

I can't believe it, Abbey did not comply with the last court order and yet I received from the Court this morning 'Notice of Allocation to Fast Track' with the following order:

UPON neither party having attended the telephone conference.

• District Judge xxxxxx has considered the statements of case and allocation questionnaires filed, and allocated the claim to the fast track

• Each party by 1st March 2007 give standard disclosure to every other part by list. Any requests for inspection or copies of disclosed documents shall be made within 7 days after service of the list.

• Each party by 26th April 2007 by simultaneous exchange serve on every other party the witness statements of the evidence on which that party intends to rely in relation to any issues of fact to be decided at the trial, and any notices of intention to rely on hearsay evidence.

• No expert evidence being necessary, no party has permission to call or rely on expert evidence.

• Pre-trial Checklists be (sent to the parties by 10th May 2007 and the completed Pre-Trial Checklists shall be) filed by 4pm on 24th May 2007. The Claimant must file with the checklists:-

a)copies of all statements of case (including schedules), witness statements and export reports, which have not already been filed
b)a case summary not exceeding 500 words and draft listing directions which must include or attach a proposed trial timetable, allowing for all stages of the trial including the judge's reading time, and consideration and delivery of the judgement. These documents must be agreed with the other party or parties if possible. If not agreed the Claimant must explain.


6.If the claim or part of the claim is settled the parties must immediately inform the Court, whether or not it is then possible to file a draft Consent order to give effect to the settlement. Note that the listing fee will be refunded if the Court is notified at least 14 days before the trial date of settlement or discontinuation

IMPORTANT NOTICE

• The parties' attention is drawn to their duty under CPR1.3 to help the court further the overriding objective, which includes ensuring that the case is dealt with expeditiously.

The parties may agree in writing to vary the timetable but NOT so as to alter the date for return of Pre-Trial Checklists, a pre-trial review, a case management conference or the trial date or trial window.

Any failure to attend, or to file the Pre-Trial Checklist, is likely to result WITHOUT FURTHER WARNING in a sanction, which may, under CPR3.4 include STRIKING OUT of the defaulting party's case.

• The costs are to be in the case.

• This order was made without a hearing. Any party affected by it may apply within 7 days of service for it to be set aside, varied or stayed.

• The trial shall take place between 5th July 2007 and 26 July 2007 (the trial window). The time provisionally allowed will be 1 day.

This seems so unfair, why do the Courts let the banks get away with non-compliance of an order. If I can get everything together (all documents to be relied upon at the hearing) and into the Court on time I don't see why Abbey can't, but they don't and the court seem to ignore this fact and just carry on.

I am not concerned about this order just the fact that they let the banks get away with it. I suppose had better get ready my list for standard disclosure and see if Abbey do so as well.

Abbey have settled in full.

They settled on my business account earlier this month but I told them that I would only withdraw my claim from Court if they simultaneously settled this one. And they have.

Long wait but worth it.

donation on its way.

Thanks everyone for your help. Only Citibank to conquer now.