Jump to content


CPR 17.3.10 Does this exist?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5439 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi, quick question

 

during my ongoing farce involving Howard Cohen they have decided to re ammend their re ammended Particulars of Claim. I decided to question this and tell them that they either needed my permission or that of the Court. I have just recieved a letter stating - 'We refer you to CPR 17.3.10, which confirms parties ought to consent to ammendments they cannot oppose because if they do not they may be penalised in costs.'

 

I have looked on the Ministry of Justice website that contains the CPR rules and searched on the internet but have not located CPR 17.3.10 , does it exist? If so can someone point me in the right direction to find it.

 

Knowing their track record It wouldn't suprise me if it didn't. Just like the Default Notice they listed on their Disclosure list that now apparently has vanished and is going to be replaced by a screen grab with the words 'default issued' and a copy of a blank Default Notice (I will start a new thread for that!)

 

Thanks,

 

Pookey

I'm in the DCA kicking business ..........and business is good!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, quick question

 

during my ongoing farce involving Howard Cohen they have decided to re ammend their re ammended Particulars of Claim. I decided to question this and tell them that they either needed my permission or that of the Court. I have just recieved a letter stating - 'We refer you to CPR 17.3.10, which confirms parties ought to consent to ammendments they cannot oppose because if they do not they may be penalised in costs.'

 

I have looked on the Ministry of Justice website that contains the CPR rules and searched on the internet but have not located CPR 17.3.10 , does it exist? If so can someone point me in the right direction to find it.

 

Knowing their track record It wouldn't suprise me if it didn't. Just like the Default Notice they listed on their Disclosure list that now apparently has vanished and is going to be replaced by a screen grab with the words 'default issued' and a copy of a blank Default Notice (I will start a new thread for that!)

 

Thanks,

 

Pookey

 

Yes it does exist. If you were to oppose unreasonably then you could have a cost award made against you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to both of you.

 

Where can I find a full list of CPR rules?

 

PART 17 - AMENDMENTS TO STATEMENTS OF CASE - Ministry of Justice

 

This is where I have always looked, but CPR 17.3 only goes to (2) on here.

 

I have found a reference to CPR 17.3.5 and 17.3.6 on google but cant find a full text of them so I can read them for myself.

 

Pookey

I'm in the DCA kicking business ..........and business is good!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having been doing some more digging I found this with a reference to a 17.3.5

 

 

 

 

  1. RELEVANT PRINCIPLES
  2. I must now turn to the proposed knowing receipt amendments sought by Davidson and Sankey. The position in respect of the amendments sought by Easyrad (to the exclusion of the Oystertec Converter), if permission is given to proceed with the amended derivative claim, should be the same. There are two general guiding principles when exercising the jurisdiction to grant permission to amend under CPR 17.1(2)(b). The first principle is stated by Peter Gibson LJ in Cobbold v. London Borough of Greenwich (9th August 1999 CA) in a passage quoted at note 17.3.5 in Volume 1 of the White Book (p.393): "The overriding objective [of the CPR] is that the court should deal with cases justly. That includes, so far as practicable, ensuring that each case is dealt with not only expeditiously but also fairly. Amendments in general ought to be allowed so that the real dispute between the parties can be adjudicated upon provided that any prejudice to the other party or parties caused by the amendments can be compensated for in costs, and the public interest in the efficient administration of justice is not significantly harmed."
     
  3. The second principle is that the court ought not to give permission to amend if the claim has no real prospect of succeeding, and in particular if the claim is untruthful or fanciful or is unsupported by evidence and is put forward in the hope that something may turn up on disclosure or trial.

It appears to refer to this -

 

The White Book 2009

 

1 - Is this 'White Book' an offical version of the CPR rules or simply guidance for solicitors in applying the rules.

 

2 - The ammendment they wish to make is on the face of it quite small, the ommision of a number from the middle of the account number they are claiming against (I have already defended on the point that I have never had an account of the number quoted). But given that they have already ammended the POCs twice (wrong bank and wrong balance) and that there was a Court order telling them to supply CCA, default notice, Notice of Assignment etc by a certain date and they have not (this date was over amonth ago). Could I use the argument that it is too late to ammend and that as no documents have ever been supplied I object as there is little hope of their case succeeding.

 

I have just recieved a pre-trial checklist that needs to be returned by 18/5/09, it seems odd that Howard Cohen seem to try to confuse things just as paperwork needs to filed again!

 

I am worried that they are going to turn up at court with an agreement and some dodgy paperwork and I will have to form a defence on the spot!

 

Pookey

Edited by pookeymonkey

I'm in the DCA kicking business ..........and business is good!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone has access to 'The White Book' does it have a setion 17.3.10 and if so can you let me know what it says?

 

Pookey

I'm in the DCA kicking business ..........and business is good!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone has access to 'The White Book' does it have a setion 17.3.10 and if so can you let me know what it says?

 

Pookey

 

Yes the 2009 edition does but I don't have it to hand. From memory it quotes a case and states that if you unreasonably oppose a request to amend a defence then you may be liable for costs of hearing to determine it.

You may receive different advice to your query as people have different experiences and opinions. Please use your own judgement in deciding whose advice to take.

 

If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional. Any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability.

 

If you think I have been helpful PLEASE click the scales

 

court bundles for dummies

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is where it gets slightly complex - in the old days there used to be the Green Book - which was the county court practice and the White book which was the Supreme (High/CA) Practice both were viewed as being the definitive sources of the relevant court practice and procedure and both were cited as being authorities.

 

With the implementation of the Civil Procedure Rules the White Book and the Green book lost much of their authority - the white book re-invented itself as a practice guide in direct competition to the green book.

 

The CPR & Practice Directions are online that said the Courts still listen carefully to what the White and Green books say and I personally think it is right, in law and practice, that if you refuse to consent to an amendment and the other side are forced to apply for permission and permission is granted that you should pay the costs.

 

The reasoning is that the starting point is that costs follow the event - if I am forced to make an application and win I get my costs if I lose I pay your costs. Costs Orders have to be paid within 14 days.

 

I think that it is usually best to consent to amendments - perhaps if you consent on the basis that you reserve the right to apply to strike out the claim.

 

In my experience courts almost always give permission to amend - its' easier and cheaper to consent

 

That said if they ask for permission it might be an idea to post their suggested amendments on here and we'll give them the once over

If I've helped feel free to add to my reputation.

 

I am not a Practising Lawyer. My comments are my opinion only. You should not rely upon those comments and should always take your own professional advice from a practising Solicitor or Barrister

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...