Thanks, that was how I was thinking.

Thanks. Do you have a view in regard to my comment "One potential issue that is mentioned on the other forum is that the claimant in regard to the "debt" may have changed since the original claim. This is because there is a new managing agent for the property. I wouldn't have though this mattered, otherwise in general, you could just assign a "debt" to somebody else in order to re-litigate. Am I thinking straight?"

Thanks. It is not my case. I am looking to help a poster on another forum. See here. He also posted on CAG here. I am presuming that the original case was struck out for failure to comply with the Court Order. The OP states "was given a copy of the letter sent to the managing agent stating "no further directions given. The claim is presently struck out for non-compliance with the order" One potential issue that is mentioned on the other forum is that the claimant in regard to the "debt" may have changed since the original claim. This is because there is a new managing agent for the property. I wouldn't have though this mattered, otherwise in general, you could just assign a "debt" to somebody else in order to re-litigate. Am I thinking straight?

Thanks. How would you view a new claim after a case was struck out for failure by the claimant to comply with this order: 1. the claim be stayed as it makes no serious attempt to comply with CPR16.4(1) by setting out a concise statement of facts. (Stylised particulars do not constitute compliance.) The Claimant must amend or substitute the particulars of claim by setting out the claimants case in plain in english by 4pm 2 weeks from date of order.and in default the claim be struck out without further notice. 2. the defence be stayed as it makes no serious attempt to comply with CPR16.4(1) (same as above but 4 weeks from date of order)

I was thinking more of where a case is struck out for a breach of a peremptory order

Thanks. I found this on the appeal of the Dixie case I think the decision whether the Court will allow a second case (after abuse of process is claimed) will depend on the specific circumstances.

Looking at the Dixie v British Polythene case it states : "It was settled law that where a first action had been stuck out for breach of a peremptory order or as an abuse of process, issuing a second action on the same facts would be an abuse of process." Does anybody know which case(s) the settled law comes from?

Back again! This thing never seems to want to end. Recap: The old managing agent for the block in which I own a flat brought a county court claim against me for arrears of approx £1500 service charges. I had already brought a claim in the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) against the current Landlord in relation to the same (almost) service charges. This case never even got put on a track as the Claimants AQ got lost in the post, then a notice of a hearing got lost in the post. Hearings also got vacated by the Claiamnt at the last minute. By the time we eventually got to be heard on Tuesday for an application to strike out the award of wasted costs and strike out the striking out of an application to reinstate I had already been awarded a default costs certificate for £1600. The decision: The result was that the whole application was struck out because the Claimant didn't have the right to sue and demands were not made properly. The £1600 wasted costs certificate was withdrawn and a new order for wasted costs by detailed assessment was awarded. However the District Judge, who is also the Costs Judge, said that costs would only be awarded in accordance with the small claims track and that he would be the Judge for any case that got heard. I got home and checked how costs work with small claims and see that you can only claim for £50 a day. I've attended 2 hearings, 1 for 10 minutes when the Claimant didn't turn up, and 1 for 30 minutes. What am I missing? This doesn't seem to make sense to me. I've spent a hell of a lot of time on original research and preparing for 4 hearings. Andy?

Hi Andy, Are you still there? I don't feel comfortable with this court case running in parallel to the LVT case that I brought and am wondering if you know how costs will be decided on should the CC case end up reinstated and the decision go's against me. The amount demanded from me is approx. £1700. I'm sure this amount will be reduced by the LVT. I've had a previous case and I managed to get £400 knocked off. Assuming this is allocated to the fast track because of its complexity. Is there any guideline on how costs will be awarded if it turns out I only owe, say £1300? Also, what would happen if the £1700 is paid with no liability accepted? Is that something that reduces the risk of costs being awarded? If the LVT then decide that £1300 is fair, the Landlord will then owe me £400.

Thanks Andy. There was an earlier holiday that caused the Claimant to i) miss the reminder to send his AQ ii) miss a hearing between him and my neighbour. Apparently he had sent the AQ in but the court never received it. That was the excuse used when he applied to reinstate the 2 cases. Then he never turned up for either of the reinstatement hearings. That was apparently because he never received the notifications from the Courts. The reinstatement applications were struck out and I was awarded wasted costs. I waited 3 months (max. I could wait) to send my bill of costs, guessing him and his lawyers would do something if I sent it in straight away. Then the next day he applied to set aside the decision that awarded me costs but he hasn't applied in regard to my neighbours case (she wasn't awarded costs). In that 3 months there were a couple of letters he'd sent to the court asking them to look at the case but he'd never sent me copies. In a separate ongoing case between the 3 parties (essentially the same issue) at the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) he is being represented by a lawyer so I'm guessing he's being coached by that lawyer. I suspect he may eventually want to try and get his costs via the CC case as the LVT case is a 'no costs' jurisdiction.

I'm being given the runaround by these people. I spent most of Friday and the whole weekend preparing for the hearing today and have just phoned up and the Court have told me the hearing has been vacated because they received a letter to say the Claimant was on holiday and couldn't make the hearing. The admin. people only got the decision back from the Judge on Friday (presumably after I'd phoned to check everything was OK). My costs were already more than the claim before this latest mount of work. Do I stand any chance of getting them back? What should I do about my claim for wasted costs? This hearing was to set aside the decision to award them. Do I submit for default judgement or do I now have to wait until the hearing is rescheduled?

Thanks Andy. Not looking forward to it. It's scheduled for 30 minutes. I can't imagine why.

I'm not so sure. The applicant is a very wealthy managing agent operating through a limited company. He has started the case on behalf of the old landlord (managing agent owners son). The LVT case I brought is against the new owners (Limited company owned by old landlords mum and her sister). For the LVT case there is a solicitor representing both old and new landlords and they claim to have racked up about £4000 in costs but the LVT is a 'no costs' jurisdiction. I'm wondering whether they are keeping this CC case on simmer so they can incorporate the costs spent. I suspect the applicant is being coached in order to keep the CC court case alive.

Hi Andy, I'm not really in a position to scan what I have received. I've summarised the situation in post #67. What I have just received is a notice of a hearing - "The hearing of the defendant's application for Judgement to be Set aside (see copy attached) will take place at.... [note: it is actually the claimants application] Attached to the notice is the n244 application which states ""The notices of a hearing sent to me on 18th November 2010 were never received. Judgement was made in my absence. The matter has now been referred to a District Judge who has given leave for me to have the judgement, dated 25th February 2011, set aside" Attached to the application are 2 letters from the applicant to the court. One dated 8/3/11 which asks for the matter to be investigated because the claimant cannot accept that it can be struck out without being able to represent himself". The other dated 21/3/11 claims he didn't receive notification of the hearing (the one as a result of the application to re-instate after he didn't send in the AQ). The order that he is trying to set aside is dated 25/2/11 and states: IT IS ORDERED THAT 1. Application to reinstate struck out. 2. The Claimant do pay Defendant's wasted costs of and occasioned by this claim and to be the subject of detailed assessment in default of agreement.

Hi bazaar, Thanks for your help. They are looking to set aside the order that said they should pay wasted costs and which ordered the striking out of the application to re-instate the case. They submitted this application to set-aside just 2 days after my bill of costs was sent. I had deliberately waited 3 months before sending my bill of costs because I also sent a bill of costs after the case was originally struck out, only for them to apply for it to be re-instated (because the courts hadn't received their AQ). The issue here for me, and why I submitted my bill of costs, is that there was already a case at the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal when they took out their claim. There was no need to burden me with all the work associated with the CC claim. The LVT will eventually come to their decision and any amount due will be paid.