Guarantor problem

[sillygirl1]

Youd stand a far better chance at the oral examination - all it is is asking your sister did she realise that if her friend hadn't paid the rent she would be liable for it - under the circumstances I think the case would be dismissed against her - but you don't know the judges viewpoint. I would turn up at the oral examination and not to an N245, the judge will want to see an Income & Expenditure form and if your sister was on income support at the time of signing the guarantee it would probably be an invalid guarantee....

[fbnts]

Thanks for your reply, but they already have judgement in default so I presume they can't dismiss the case. I believe this attendance order is so the court can provide the claimant with complete, true details of my sisters assets etc so they can then decide what enforcement action to take.

 

I have been revisiting the whole defence regarding consideration, which from reading more and more on it, I think is a valid defence. I am now thinking about making an application to set aside the judgement and enter a full defence.

 

Tom

[slick132]

Hi FBNTS,

 

Can you confirm please what has been ordered by the court in the notice.

 

Adding to SillyGirl's comments, I think the lettings agents were clearly at fault as I stated earlier on the thread.

 

If the agent had done any basic checks, this would have shown that YS was not financially able to stand as guarantor. Therefore, you could argue that the LL should have sued the agent, and not YS who clearly should not have been accepted as a guarantor.

Edited May 26, 2009 by slick132

[fbnts]

The order reads:

 

"Order to attend court for questioning

 

On 30 April 2009, the court

considered the application of the claimant ("the judgement creditor") which shows that: a judgement or order given on 04 March 2009 ordered the defendant ("the judgement debtor") to pay money to the judgement creditor, and that the amount now owing under the judgement or order is £4,237.69

 

and the court orders that

 

1. the judgement debotor attend at before a court officer at to provide information about the judgement debtor's means and any other information needed to enforce the enforce the judgement or order.

 

2. The judgement debtor at that time and place produce at court all documents in the judgement debort's control which relates to the judgement debtor's means of paying the amount due under the judgement or order and which relate to those matters mentioned in paragraph 1.

 

3. The judgement debtor at that time and place answer on oath, all the questions which the court asks and which the court allows the judgement creditor to ask.

 

4. The court where the questioning is to take place may make an order for payment of the costs of the application and of the hearing."

 

It then just details the debt and the cost of £45 fee for the hearing.

 

How should I proceed? We did return the Acknowledgement of Service but just didn't submit a defence so from reading the CPR, we can submit a application to set aside judgement which the court must do. (If we hadn't returned anything then I read it that the court decides if it can be set aside).

 

Tom

[slick132]

Going back through the thread, I cannot see if YS signed a separate Guarantee, or she signed the actual tenancy agreement. Please confirm and, if there was a separate document, post the wording or a scanned copy.

 

Seeing the amounts involved and YS's circumstances, it is very clear that YS shouldn't have acted, or been accepted, as Guarantor.

 

I'm not sure how you would do it exactly, but I'd apply for a Set-Aside on the basis that YS should never have been accepted as guarantor, and she never realised the consequences of doing so.

 

The court will see that YS is unable to settle this debt, even over several years, given that she's on benefits and a low income.

[fbnts]

Hi, it wasn't a seperate guarantee, it was a quarter page within the tenancy agreement and her signature on the final page.

 

We shall apply for the set aside and base our defence on the consideration point and in the alternate the negligance of the letting agent.

 

Tom

[slick132]

Sounds like a plan to me, Tom.

 

Good luck to you and YS.

Edited June 17, 2009 by slick132
typo

[Guest Old_andrew2018]

Good Luck,

[fbnts]

Does this read ok for N244 set aside application:

Order:

1. An order setting aside the judgement by default on the basis that the defendant has a full defence to the claim which at the time of returning the acknowlegement of service the defendant did not have the financial resources to prepare a full defence.

 

2. The adjornment of the order to attend court for questioning dated at .

 

 

Evidence to rely upon:

The defendant contests that the agreement the claimant relies upon is unenforcable as no consideration can be demonstrated to be passing from the claimant to the defendant.

 

Refering to Dunlop v Selfridge Ltd [1915] AC 847 one of the fundermental points of contract law is that a valid contract must show sufficient consideration passing between both parties. In the contract relied upon there is no consideration passing from the claimant to the defendant. On this basis the defandant views the agreement to be unenforceable. Such an agreement should have been drafted as a Deed and not a Contractual Agreement.

 

Additionally, or alternatively, the defendant was not advised to take legal advice before signing such an agreement. The claimant and their agents failed to perform basic checks on the defendant to check their suitability as a guarantor and that they had the means to perform the duty of guarantor.

[slick132]

Can I suggest:-

 

1. An order setting aside the judgement by default, dated xxdate, on the basis that the defendant has a full defence to the claim. However, at the time of returning the acknowlegement of service, the defendant did not have the financial resources or the knowledge to prepare a full defence.

 

I don't have the necessary expertise to comment on the full content of the Application. If you want this moved to the Legal Issues forum, let us know.

[fbnts]

Thanks for all your help - The judge has adjorned the "Order to attend court for questioning" and set a date in August for the Set Aside application.

 

Fingers crossed!

 

Tom

[no pain no gain]

Hi fbnts (Tom),

 

due to time constraints I have recently decided that I cannot engage in any new threads. However, I hate to see people like your sister about to engage in potentially costly court proceedings, which in my humble view, are doomed to failure!

 

The reasons are as follows;

 

1. The guarantee whether made as a deed or in contract is, in my view, valid, enforceable and totally legal.

 

2. With regard to consideration, the consideration was the passing of the valuable right of the tenant to move into the property upon guarantee by your sister of all of the obligations included in the agreement. In this area i.e as guarantor - your sister is, in law, placing herself in the shoes of the tenant. As simple and uncomplicated - when witnessed by her signature -as that.

 

3. There was clearly an intention by your sister and the landlord to enter into a legal and contractual relationship.

 

4. The agent acting on behalf of the landlord owed no duty of care to your sister, his duty in law did not extend beyond that of his client/landlord.

 

5. Assuming, as I do, that your sister is of the age of legal capacity to enter a contract (Minor's Contracts Act 1987) the contract is good in law. Further I am sure your sister is of sound mind and in this regard I point you to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 section 1(4) which states "A person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision merely because he makes an unwise decision."

 

The upshot of the above is that I would be very reluctant to engage in costly Court proceedings. Your application to set aside, as far as I can see, shows no realistic possibility of success although the Court is duty bound to hear it, ultimately almost certainly to your sister's cost. Your sister, as you say, is not in a position to pay the sums owed and as such would only be ordered to pay the amount she could afford.

 

Any negligence on the part of the agent in regard to your sister's lack of ability to fulfil her guarantor obligations leave a right of action to the landlord against his agent and in my view no redress to your sister.

 

I regret having to be so blunt but law is a factual and pragmatic subject which does not lend itself kindly to emotional involvement. As I have stated before on this forum "moral arguments weigh very lightly on the scales of justice."!!

 

Best of Luck.

 

No pain no gain

[no pain no gain]

Edited June 18, 2009 by no pain no gain
posted on wrong thread

[Aequitas]

1. The guarantee whether made as a deed or in contract is, in my view, valid, enforceable and totally legal.

 

2. With regard to consideration, the consideration was the passing of the valuable right of the tenant to move into the property upon guarantee by your sister of all of the obligations included in the agreement. In this area i.e as guarantor - your sister is, in law, placing herself in the shoes of the tenant. As simple and uncomplicated - when witnessed by her signature -as that.

 

3. There was clearly an intention by your sister and the landlord to enter into a legal and contractual relationship.

 

4. The agent acting on behalf of the landlord owed no duty of care to your sister, his duty in law did not extend beyond that of his client/landlord.

 

5. Assuming, as I do, that your sister is of the age of legal capacity to enter a contract (Minor's Contracts Act 1987) the contract is good in law. Further I am sure your sister is of sound mind and in this regard I point you to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 section 1(4) which states "A person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision merely because he makes an unwise decision."

 

As to 1. There is an argument, that I admit not all lawyers accept, that a guarantee must be by deed. The argument is that a promise unsupported by consideration is unenforceable unless made by deed. It is an argument worth putting forward.

 

As to 2. This does of course tie up with point 1. There is no doubt that consideration passed between the tenant and the landlord; the tenant promises to pay rent and the landlord to provide accommodation. Whilst the guarantor promised to pay the rent etc, it difficult to see what consideration passed from the landlord to the guarantor. What did the guarantor get out of the arrangement? I have seen some convoluted arguments that try to show that something passes to the guarantor, but I do not find them wholly convincing.

 

As to 3. The point is not whether there was an intention to enter into a binding arrangement, but rather whether the arrangement was binding.

 

As to 4. This is not really relevant.

 

As to 5. Whilst the law allows a man to enter into an arrangement that is contrary to his own best interest, it does like to be satisfied that he did so knowing what he was doing.

 

Where a man stands as a guarantor or otherwise provides security for the performance of a contract by another and does not himself stand to obtain any benefit, I think the cases show that the court will apply the following rules which, if not rules of law, are guiding principles:

 

1. In the absence of coercion or undue influence (which of course would be sufficient to render the guarantee void) the court will want to look at whether the guarantor fully appreciated the effect of signing the guarantee, or at the very least was given the opportunity to take advice. If there is no evidence of that, then I think it goes a long way to raising a presumption that the guarantor did not appreciate what he was doing. To an extent it is going to depend on who the guarantor is; a professional person can reasonably be expected to understand what a guarantee is, whilst a non-profesional person cannot.

 

2. The terms of the guarantee need to be clear. Not only must the wording be clear, but there must be no traps for the unwary.

 

We do not know all the circumstances, what arguments will be put forward in court and what the judge will make of them. Accordingly, we cannot predict the outcome. I do not think though that we need to offer a counsel of despair. I refer to this thread on another site which shows that guarantors can win: JustClaim :: View topic - dodgy landlord and guarantee document

[no pain no gain]

Hi Aequitas,

 

great to have a fertile mind engaged.

 

I note that in your reproduction of my post you leave out the last weighty words of the paragraph which for your convenience I repeat;

 

"Moral arguments weigh very lightly on the scales of Justice".

 

I respectfully fail to see that you have raised anything other than a moral argument. Further, you appear at best to place more than significant reliance on the need for 'consideration' to exist, I again respectfully suggest that you are wrong. This is not a contract of complication and as such although I believe as previously stated consideration does exist it is not necessary in all circumstances. I believe you may be confusing this contract with one of a sale of goods, land etc.

 

My starting point for entering this thread was to attempt to avoid the unnecessary disappointment and costs to the party concerned - that remains my objective.

 

I submit for your consideration that the 'common law' rule, or 'principle' as you might prefer, demands that the parties to a contract act in 'good faith'. When that principle has been met the next consideration is merely, in this type of contract, what was the intention of the parties? All other matters fall behind these considerations in my humble view.

 

I believe, were you to trawl through the authorities relating to the above, you would be forced to conclude that when there is a clear intention of the parties concerned to enter into a legal relationship that in itself has been and would be deemed to be a consideration - free standing - in the circumstances we debate.

 

Due to an unexpected but welcome dinner engagement I must sadly leave you here.

 

Kindest regards,

 

No pain no gain

[Aequitas]

Hi Aequitas

 

And hi to you.

 

great to have a fertile mind engaged.

 

My mind is also infinitely subtle, having been purified in the crucible of experience.

 

"Moral arguments weigh very lightly on the scales of Justice".

 

I am sure we could have an interesting discussion on that, but this thread is not the place for debates on jurisprudence. I have posed the question in the "General Knowledge" forum.

 

I respectfully fail to see that you have raised anything other than a moral argument. Further, you appear at best to place more than significant reliance on the need for 'consideration' to exist, I again respectfully suggest that you are wrong. This is not a contract of complication and as such although I believe as previously stated consideration does exist it is not necessary in all circumstances. I believe you may be confusing this contract with one of a sale of goods, land etc.

 

I am not sure I am introducing what you refer to as moral arguments, but rather legal ones. There are two aspects here:

 

1. Does the arrangement fail because of the lack of some formality or requirement?

 

2. If it does not, can the arrangement be unravelled for some other reason?

 

As to 1, the lack of some formality or requirement is not necessarily fatal. In certain cases equity may ride to the rescue.

 

As to 2, the presence of the necessary formality and requirements does not of itself necessarily guarantee the arrangement will be allowed to stand. Equity may again intervene.

 

My starting point for entering this thread was to attempt to avoid the unnecessary disappointment and costs to the party concerned - that remains my objective.

 

Entirely laudable. However, a lawyer's job is to say it as he sees it. He ought though to follow his advice up with appropriate cuationary remarks. We are asked in this thread if there is "a way out" and all I have done is to suggest some arguments that can be put to the court.

 

I submit for your consideration that the 'common law' rule, or 'principle' as you might prefer, demands that the parties to a contract act in 'good faith'. When that principle has been met the next consideration is merely, in this type of contract, what was the intention of the parties? All other matters fall behind these considerations in my humble view.

 

I believe, were you to trawl through the authorities relating to the above, you would be forced to conclude that when there is a clear intention of the parties concerned to enter into a legal relationship that in itself has been and would be deemed to be a consideration - free standing - in the circumstances we debate.

 

 

I do not think you can get away from the fact that under English law consideration is an essential element of a contract unless it is made by deed. If the arrangement looks like a contract the courts will try to find consideration if they can, but if they fail to find it they will declare there is no contract. An intention to form legal relations is not enough. A guarantee has to comply with the legal requirements just like any other type of contract.

 

The main point is this: the law allows a man to drive a hard bargain and also allows a man to do something that is against his better interest. However, in any case where there is an imbalance of bargaining power between the parties and/or one party derives no benefit, the courts will want to be sure that that party understood fully what he was doing.

 

Due to an unexpected but welcome dinner engagement I must sadly leave you here.

Hope they served a nice wine.

Edited June 21, 2009 by Aequitas

[no pain no gain]

Slow down Tiger,

 

yes the wine was fine thank you, however that was two days ago!

 

Little 'puzzle' for you;

 

Recently I guarantored my daughter for a loan. There was no deed of agreement between me and her bank other than a simple completion of the guarantor section of the contract. Perhaps you might enlighten us as to where the consideration in this 'contract' was?

 

Your move.

 

NPNG

[no pain no gain]

Hi Aequitas

 

The latin understanding of your forum name apparently translates to justice/fairness/equity.

 

With regard to the above, I await your reply.

[Aequitas]

Recently I guarantored my daughter for a loan. There was no deed of agreement between me and her bank other than a simple completion of the guarantor section of the contract. Perhaps you might enlighten us as to where the consideration in this 'contract' was?

 

I thought banks always got guarantors to execute deeds. Are you sure it was not a deed? If it was not, then I cannot see where the consideration was.

[no pain no gain]

Hi Aequitas,

 

we are going to have to agree to differ with regard as to whether consideration exists in the context which we discuss or infact is even necessary. If you could point me to some authority to support your views I will gladly consider that position and the relevance to the issue which we discuss. I do not consider the citing of an alleged County Court ruling to be of any value to the matter in hand. As you will no doubt be aware such rulings are binding on nobody, not even on the 'ruling' County Court.

 

My position is simply this, consideration in the contract we discuss did exist and furthermore did pass. It is not a requirement for that consideration to pass to the guarantor in the context we debate.

 

Staying with Latin (although it is not as widely used these days in my opinion rightly so), the principles often laid down in latin are deep rooted in our case law and provide an excellent foundation of doctrines.

 

I am, as you are aware, working on the unshakable premise that in this case consideration did exist and did move thus the contract is lawful. I submit for your consideration the following latin principles

 

1. ex nodo pacto non oritur actio - no action arises out of a bare (in the sense of no consideration) pact.

 

2. res ipsa loquitur - the things speak for themselves - in laymans terms it is blindingly obvious.

 

3. de minimis non curat lex - the law takes no account of matters of minor or trifling importance - let's concentrate on the real issues in the case.

 

4. juris et de jure - of the law and from the law - an assumption that may not be rebutted, it is absolute so please do not argue it.

 

5. volenti non fit injuria - no injury is done to one who consents (perhaps not applicable as such in the matter we debate but the principle is sound if read in conjuction with 6. below).

 

6. consensus ad idem - the intention of the parties.

 

One of the overriding objectives of the CPR is - fiat justitia ruat caelum - let justice be done even though the heavens should fall.

 

Were your position with regard to the guarantor to hold any water then presumably the innocent party who acted to his own detriment i.e. the landlord would be left, as you would have it, with no remedy against the guarantor - notwithstanding that the Court would conclude, using the reasonable man test, that he (the guarantor) knew or ought to have known exactly the type of warranty that was expected of him and to which he readily lent his name.

 

Of course were it me (in the shoes of the landlord) I would have considered inter alia bringing a suit against the guarantor in contract and/or in the tort of deceit. In the tort of deceit when a person is deceived into entering a contract all damage that flows from that deceit is recoverable in law including damages for loss of chance.

 

As I started by stating earlier in this thread, my intention was to attempt to save the guarantor from unnecessary disappointment and costs.

 

One can never be sure when one will encounter an opponent who is versed in law and litigation. Litigation can often, even at County Court level, be very expensive and should be avoided at all 'cost' unless of course you are sure beyond expensive doubt that your arguements must prevail.

 

Many a person has lost a great deal, including on occasions their wealth and home, on such trivial civil disputes as 'garden fence dispute' litigation.

 

Little joke: Morally angry client marches into solicitors office and demands to know how much the solicitors charges are. The solicitor states he charges £500 to answer 3 questions. The potential client says "don't you think £500 is a bit expensive?" Solicitor replies "yes I do, now what's your third question?" !!!!

 

ignorantia legis neminem excusat

 

Kind regards

 

No pain no gain

[Aequitas]

we are going to have to agree to differ with regard as to whether consideration exists in the context which we discuss or infact is even necessary.

 

Whilst there is room to disagree as to whether consideration exists, but I do not think there can be any doubt that it is necessary.

 

If you could point me to some authority to support your views I will gladly consider that position and the relevance to the issue which we discuss.

 

As to the necessity for consideration I refer you to this article: Consideration in English law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia As to the specific point I am unable to provide any authority. What I am doing is arguing form principles.

 

I do not consider the citing of an alleged County Court ruling to be of any value to the matter in hand. As you will no doubt be aware such rulings are binding on nobody, not even on the 'ruling' County Court.

 

Agreed. I do though derive some comfort that there is at lest one other lawyer who agrees with me!

 

My position is simply this, consideration in the contract we discuss did exist and furthermore did pass. It is not a requirement for that consideration to pass to the guarantor in the context we debate.

 

My argument is that there are really two contracts here. One is between the landlord and the tenant which is clearly supported by consideration. The other is between the landlord and the guarantor where the consideration is more difficult to find.

 

1. ex nodo pacto non oritur actio - no action arises out of a bare (in the sense of no consideration) pact.

 

That is just saying that a contract needs consideration. The question is whether there is any consideration.

 

2. res ipsa loquitur - the things speak for themselves - in laymans terms it is blindingly obvious.

 

This principle applies only to the law of tort. It is exemplified by the leading case in which a barrel of flour fell out of an upper floor of a building and injured a passer-by. The court said that barrels of flour ought not to roll out of windows and negligence could be presumed.

 

3. de minimis non curat lex - the law takes no account of matters of minor or trifling importance - let's concentrate on the real issues in the case.

 

This refers to the subject matter of the dispute. The court will not rule in a case that involves trifles.

 

4. juris et de jure - of the law and from the law - an assumption that may not be rebutted, it is absolute so please do not argue it.

 

I cannot see how this principle applies. What assumptions are we to make that cannot be rebutted?

 

5. volenti non fit injuria - no injury is done to one who consents (perhaps not applicable as such in the matter we debate but the principle is sound if read in conjuction with 6. below).

 

This also applies only in tort cases. It says that if you do something where there is a risk of injury and consent, you cannot complain. The example usually given is a boxing match. The risk of injury is clear and if you get into the ring you consent.

 

6. consensus ad idem - the intention of the parties.

 

This is the same as saying the parties must intend to enter into legal relations. It does not on its own create a contract.

 

One of the overriding objectives of the CPR is - fiat justitia ruat caelum - let justice be done even though the heavens should fall.

 

No argument with that. However, it has to be borne in mind that "justice" and "justice under the law" are not always the same. The former is a matter for theologians and moral philosophers, the latter for the courts. The plain fact is that the courts sometimes have to decide a case between two innocent parties and have to come to a decision. Theologians and moral philosophers do not.

 

Were your position with regard to the guarantor to hold any water then presumably the innocent party who acted to his own detriment i.e. the landlord would be left, as you would have it, with no remedy against the guarantor - notwithstanding that the Court would conclude, using the reasonable man test, that he (the guarantor) knew or ought to have known exactly the type of warranty that was expected of him and to which he readily lent his name.

 

I do not think it is as simple as that. Restricting ourselves to guarantees for ASTs, it is almost always going to be the case that it is the landlord who insists on the guarantee. The guarantor will be "reluctant". No sensible person seeks to be a guarantor. No one derives any benefit from being a guarantor. Since that is the case, it is important that the guarantor realises precisely what he is doing. See further below.

 

Of course were it me (in the shoes of the landlord) I would have considered inter alia bringing a suit against the guarantor in contract and/or in the tort of deceit. In the tort of deceit when a person is deceived into entering a contract all damage that flows from that deceit is recoverable in law including damages for loss of chance.

 

I am having difficulty in seeing how deceit comes into the average case.

 

As I started by stating earlier in this thread, my intention was to attempt to save the guarantor from unnecessary disappointment and costs.

One can never be sure when one will encounter an opponent who is versed in law and litigation. Litigation can often, even at County Court level, be very expensive and should be avoided at all 'cost' unless of course you are sure beyond expensive doubt that your arguements must prevail.

Many a person has lost a great deal, including on occasions their wealth and home, on such trivial civil disputes as 'garden fence dispute' litigation.

 

All that is very well, but if your argument is taken to its logical conclusion, no one would ever start a case or defend one. A party to a law suit needs to be properly advised as to his chances.

[no pain no gain]

Hi Aequitas,

 

great debate by the way.

 

"Two contracts" you say;

 

I am not sure as to whether you could argue that "there are really two contracts here" although I admit it is a colourful suggestion. There are often many segments and parties to a contract but if formed in one continuous document it is one contract binding all the signatories to it - surely!

 

In an attempt to square the circle in which we are going around, may I (using principle and not case law) pose this question:

 

If the landlord failed in any of his obligations to the contract we discuss, could the guarantor legally sue in his own right for any damage caused to him as a signatory to the contract (privity of contract)?

 

If the answer is yes - then I rest my case!

 

If you believe the answer is no - then this interesting and enjoyable legal sparring goes on - on principle alone!

 

No pain no gain

[Aequitas]

Just because the terms of the tenancy and the terms of the guarantee may be contained in one document does not mean they together make one contract.

 

The guarantor has no right to sue the landlord if the landlord breaches the terms of the tenancy.

 

Take this very simple written agreement:

 

1. John will buy from William a barrel of apples for the sum of £10. William will deliver the apples to John on 1st June and John will pay for them on delivery.

 

2. Henry agrees with William that if John fails to pay for the apples Henry will make good any loss suffered by William.

 

Signed by all parties

 

Clause 1 is a contract for the sale and purchase of apples.

 

Clause 2 is a contract for indemnity.

 

Henry is not entitled to anything - neither apples nor cash. If John pays for the apples the indemnity becomes a dead letter without Henry having had to do anything.

 

There are clearly two separate contracts in the agreement.

 

(Of course if I am right on the consideration point Henry will need to excecute the agreement as a deed if it is to be enforced against him.)

[fbnts]

Hi,

 

Sorry to resurect an old thread. We had pretty much accepted that there was no getting out of the liability.

 

Up to now the claimant has called my sister to attend court for questioning. She attended and went through her income and expenditure with a clerk in December 2009. This order was served on her personally by a representative of the Claimant. (It now transpires that he was the partner to the claimant). He attempted delivery 3 times. The first no one was in, the second I answered and he would not let me have the paperwork so he called back when my sister was in.

 

All went quiet and then in April 2010 her bank was frozen as it appeared that the claimant had applied for a 3rd party debt order. We submitted a hardship payment order as they had frozen the whole £462 that she had in her bank. The court brought forward the hearing for the 3rd party debt order but the claimant withdrew the application and the funds were then released.

 

Again, nothing has been heard since and then on 26th October 2010 a Notice of Hearing of Application was received from the court. The claimants partner has made an application:

To assign 's legal fees or a portion of her legal fees because of her refusal to except service of papers and failing to attend court, and general obstructions.

 

He has then attached copies of the claim plus an invoice schedule from the claimant's solicitor for the sum of £3063.26. The final page is a copy of a letter from the Claimant to her solicitor asking that the fees etc are added to the defendants account however this application has not been made by the solicitor and that letter was dated in May 2010. I am presuming the solicitor has turned round and said its not possible and thats why the claimants partner has made the applications?

 

I thought as it was through the small claims court costs cannot be awarded (The reasonable costs incured as a result of our attempt to set-aside the judgement have already been added to the claim balance). Is he just clutching at straws? Should we just attend the hearing and let it run its course?

 

Tom