Locked in car park

[bedlington83]

A few weeks ago in response to the claimants amendment of case application Fred submitted some applications of his own.

Four of them if I remember correctly

Obviously he applied to file an amended defence particularised to respond to the new drastically changed POC he is defending.

Absolutely, and, in the unlikely event that the court refuse, Fred gets very good grounds to appeal.(1/4)

LD don't seem to think he should be allowed to amend his defence to cater for the new POC.

Hahahaha. Really? Can't think why

 

Fred also raised concerns about the accuracy of certain statements and provenance of certain evidence.

LD don't seem to think there are any issues.

I look forward to the detail when this is all done and dusted (2/4)

 

Fred applied as fully entitled under CPR that the claimants POC be amended to reflect the agreement made between all parties and the judge on 1st July.

Quite right too (3/4)

 

LD seem to ignore the existence of this agreement yet clearly remember Freds app for a stay being refused (upon the basis of it).

LD have complained about the costs involved, the time involved, the timing of the apps, the merit of the apps, the manner in which the apps should be dealt with etc. etc. They've called the apps 'unwarranted', 'unfortunate', stated they should have been given the opportunity to address them directly, said 2 weeks (4 weeks shurely) is not enough notice, blah, blub, blah, blub.

 

It is a blubfest of staggering proportions and does not actually cover any of the points ordered by the court, concentrating as it does on portraying Fred as the villain and themselves as victims....... But then the Court has almost a whopping 50 pages more evidence in support of any allegations made by Fred than the claimant has so is perfectly able to see who plays which part in proceedings to date.

 

The judge has ignored all their protests, all their attempts at belittling Fred or the issues and ordered a hearing to be held immediately prior to the small claims hearing in order that these applications may be addressed.

 

Fred wants them addressed, the claimant quite patently does not so we have to take this as a small preliminary victory and a point in the bag.

 

So now there are two hearings planned for tuesday. This doubles the chances of Fred winning and the second hearing could prove very interesting if say for example Fred were to blurt out his 'little secret' in the first hearing....

Are you at liberty to divulge 4/4?

[Patma]

Are you at liberty to divulge 4/4?

The 4th application was for his fully particularised counterclaim to be accepted.

His original counterclaim was ignored by the claimant, who didn't see fit to bother defending against it.

When Fred submitted a judgment by default application as a result, that was ignored. In fact he sent two in just in case the first one had been overlooked.

At the Directions Hearing Fred asked what had happened to his default judgment requests and the judge supported the other side in saying that the counterclaim had been ignored because it wasn't sufficiently particularised.

Fred then submitted a fully particularised one and LD has studiously avoided even mentioning it and are obviously hoping they can pull off the same trick a second time.

[bedlington83]

Thanks Pat. I'm sure you've already told us that but thanks for reminding me.

[Patma]

Hi TLD, I've managed to download your analysis now thanks and it's excellent. Sent you a reply.

[caledfwlch]

It's very tempting to reveal the 'little secret' on this thread at about 1:45 pm on tuesday just 15 minutes before the hearing is due to start. Just leaving them enough time for a panic call to the barrister but heck let them find it out at the application hearing when it's too late to withdraw.

 

The truth is all the pertinent facts were there before them but either they failed to pick up on it or more likely simply chose to ignore and/or deliberately suppress it.

 

Why not reveal it just as they are going into court, so the office has time to go into massive panic, but its too late to grab the Barrister

 

Nothing does the heart better than seeing the "little man" running rings around trained professionals.

 

Solicitors and banks alike must rue the invention of the Internet. It also shows just how astonishingly complacent people have got.

[Alphageek]

Solicitors and banks alike must rue the invention of the Internet...

 

...and let's not forget the wonderful people who give up their time freely to help people they don't know and have never met.

[noomill060]

YouTube - Do You Want To Know A Secret (laughing version) by Beatless

[Toulose LeDebt]

Why not reveal it just as they are going into court, so the office has time to go into massive panic, but its too late to grab the Barrister

 

Nothing does the heart better than seeing the "little man" running rings around trained professionals.

 

Solicitors and banks alike must rue the invention of the Internet. It also shows just how astonishingly complacent people have got.

 

Now that is an idea!!

 

You have no idea how beatifully poetic it would be if the entire staff of Lyons-Davidson Bristol were to clock on here at 14:00 hrs and read about 'Freds little secret' whilst the barrister is in Court unreachable.

 

It was after all the interference from the barrister which brought this otherwise very carefully suppressed fact to the knowledge of the Court, how just that Lyons-Davidson find out the mistake made by their barrister at exactly the moment it becomes too late to act upon it, and the barrister finds out too late that one of the biggest 'facts' she has been given to work with in Court erm ......... 'isn't'. :lol:

Edited August 28, 2009 by Toulose LeDebt

[Alphageek]

Yes, but make sure the hearing isn't delayed. Probably best to leave it until after the hearing.

[Annoying Twit]

Poetry is nice, but there's a long term war going on here. After all, it's not guaranteed that anything that comes out at the hearing will immediately be disseminated everywhere. What if someone is embarrassed and doesn't want to draw attention to major booboos?

[natalie]

Have someone on autodial on your phone, and press to ring just as you are called in for them to post it (To everyone else it will just look as though you are turning your phone off). That way there is no chance of there being a delay.

[buxie34]

Have someone on autodial on your phone, and press to ring just as you are called in for them to post it (To everyone else it will just look as though you are turning your phone off). That way there is no chance of there being a delay.

 

OOo yes..and leave it connected so the receiver of the call can record it and put the sound file on here for us all to listen and laugh... doubt that would be allowed though.

Do you like..get a print out of the case? It would be great for us all to read at the very least. mind you..I shall be on here on the day of the case awaiting the outcome to be posted.

Would of been even better if we had our very own UK Judge Judy and had it televised. Now that would be very interesting to watch

[buxie34]

Have you invited any members of the press to the hearing?

[Lula]

Hi Everyone, I have just spent two days on and off reading this thread, I remember the first post and I thought at the time, oh, there isnt much that can be done about this, oh how wrong I was! Good luck to you all, sock it too em, it stinks to high heaven.

[Lula]

Hi Everyone, I have just spent two days on and off reading this thread, I remember the first post and I thought at the time, oh, there isnt much that can be done about this, oh how wrong I was! Good luck to you all, sock it too em, it stinks to high heaven.

[rusty24]

Same here, following with great interest, as its so obvious that no crime or damage was done. The person who instigated what seems like a con to try and get money out of an innocent must be cringing and be very worried now?

[Bookworm]

Hi Everyone, I have just spent two days on and off reading this thread, I remember the first post and I thought at the time, oh, there isnt much that can be done about this, oh how wrong I was! Good luck to you all, sock it too em, it stinks to high heaven.

 

Hi Everyone, I have just spent two days on and off reading this thread, I remember the first post and I thought at the time, oh, there isnt much that can be done about this, oh how wrong I was! Good luck to you all, sock it too em, it stinks to high heaven.

Lula: So shocked she had to say it twice.

[Lula]

Lula: So shocked she had to say it twice.

 

 

Ferme la Bouche GRandma

[noomill060]

Hi Everyone, I have just spent two days on and off reading this thread, I remember the first post and I thought at the time, oh, there isnt much that can be done about this, oh how wrong I was! Good luck to you all, sock it too em, it stinks to high heaven.

 

You can say that again!

[Toulose LeDebt]

Here's an interesting little puzzle for any bored PCAD employees reading the thread.

 

The claimants representatives (Lyons-Davidson) have entered costs estimated at in excess of £10,000 and rising steadily.

 

Now this is a small claims track hearing and the costs claimable are very strictly limited by the Civil Procedure Rules.

 

In the hypothetical worst case scenario for Fred he might be ordered to pay certain costs to the value of possibly as much as five or six hundred pounds.

 

This leaves a shortfall on the costs incurred by Lyons-Davidson of approx £10k as it stands now.

 

Can you guess who they'll be looking at to meet these costs??? :-D

 

Of course if as we plan Fred wins then the claimants reps will probably blame the defeat on misinstruction and misinformation from their client in which case you might well be looking at footing the whole bill. :eek:

 

Oh dear somebody didn't think this through very carefully did they George?

 

Seems the very best you can hope for is to win £4500 and then have to write a cheque to Lyons Davidson for £10,500+

 

Of course this is the very best you can hope for imagine the expense if you lose and face the costs plus the counterclaim?

 

As above. Somebody didn't think this through very carefully did they George? :grin::grin:

 

27.14

 

(1) This rule applies to any case which has been allocated to the small claims track unless paragraph (5) applies.

(Rules 44.9 and 44.11 make provision in relation to orders for costs made before a claim has been allocated to the small claims track)

 

(2) The court may not order a party to pay a sum to another party in respect of that other party’s costs, fees and expenses, including those relating to an appeal, except –

(a) the fixed costs attributable to issuing the claim which –

(i) are payable under Part 45; or

 

(ii) would be payable under Part 45 if that Part applied to the claim;

 

 

(b) in proceedings which included a claim for an injunction or an order for specific performance a sum not exceeding the amount specified in the relevant practice direction for legal advice and assistance relating to that claim;

 

© any court fees paid by that other party;

 

(d) expenses which a party or witness has reasonably incurred in travelling to and from a hearing or in staying away from home for the purposes of attending a hearing;

 

(e) a sum not exceeding the amount specified in the relevant practice direction for any loss of earnings or loss of leave by a party or witness due to attending a hearing or to staying away from home for the purposes of attending a hearing;

 

(f) a sum not exceeding the amount specified in the relevant practice direction for an expert’s fees; and

 

(g) such further costs as the court may assess by the summary procedure and order to be paid by a party who has behaved unreasonably.

 

 

(3) A party’s rejection of an offer in settlement will not of itself constitute unreasonable behaviour under paragraph (2)(g) but the court may take it into consideration when it is applying the unreasonableness test.

 

(4) The limits on costs imposed by this rule also apply to any fee or reward for acting on behalf of a party to the proceedings charged by a person exercising a right of audience by virtue of an order under section 11 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 19901 (a lay representative).

 

(5) Where –

(a) the financial value of a claim exceeds the limit for the small claims track; but

 

(b) the claim has been allocated to the small claims track in accordance with rule 26.7(3),

 

the small claims track costs provisions will apply unless the parties agree that the fast track costs provisions are to apply.

Edited August 28, 2009 by Toulose LeDebt

[Alphageek]

Does this mean the coffee from the vending machines will be going up in price next term?

[Toulose LeDebt]

Does this mean the coffee from the vending machines will be going up in price next term?

 

Probably only those machines accessible by the students, obviously not the staff coffee machines.

[noomill060]

I fear you could be right, alphageek.

[Alphageek]

From the practice directions:

 

7.3

 

The amounts which a party may be ordered to pay under rule 27.14(3)© (loss of earnings) and (d) (experts’ fees) are:

(1) for the loss of earnings or loss of leave of each party or witness due to attending a hearing or staying away from home for the purpose of attending a hearing, a sum not exceeding £50 per day for each person, and

 

(2) for expert’s fees, a sum not exceeding £200 for each expert.

 

(As to recovery of pre-allocation costs in a case in which an admission by the defendant has reduced the amount in dispute to a figure below £5,000, reference should be made to paragraph 7.4 of the Practice Direction supplementing CPR Part 26 and to paragraph 5.1(3) of the Costs Directions relating to CPR Part 44)

 

When was this PD written?

 

Isn't it about time things like this and the LiP hourly rate of £9.25 was updated?

[royboy68]

Now now alphageek, are you suggesting that the college would have the audacity to get the students to foot their bill. As if.