County Court action by ex friend

[indianamachno]

Ok so from what i have posted above that has been recieved back from her solicitors which is what they have sent to the court, what do you think of their responce to the defence and the order they are asking for?

 

What happens next?

[Bigdebtor]

Indy

 

My responses in bold below.

 

BD

 

Order

 

1. the claim to be fast track A: Got to be I suppose based on size of claim.

 

2. each party shall give to the other party standard discloser of documents by serving a disclosure statement together with list of documents no later than 14 march 2011 inspection of those documents by providing copies of documents so requested will take place no later than 7 days after its request is recieved. A; Fine

 

3. each party shall serve on the other party witness statements of all witnesses of fact on whom they intend to rely. they shall be simultaneous exchange of such statements no later than 4.00pm on 25th april. A; Fine

 

4. no expert evidence being necessary ,no party has permission to call or rely on expert evidence. A: Probably not required - but not sure if you should just accept this? Are they trying to avooid something that would harm them?

 

5. each party shall serve any request for clarification or further information based on any documents disclosed or statement served by another party no later than 14 days after disclosure or service. any such request shall be dealt within 14 dyas of service.A; Fine

 

6. each party must file a completed pre trail checklist no later than 16 may 2001 and the matter to be listed for trial with an estamated lengh of hearing of 3 hrs during the week commencing 13th june 2001.A; fine

 

7. costs in the case. A: OK - but I would dispute this has cost £5500 - and reserve right to have costs verified independently if you were to lose (WHICH YOU WON'T!).

 

Reply to defence

 

1.The defendant is defending this claim on the basis that the claiments statement of case is insufficiently particulised and does not comply with cpr part16. the defendant states that the POC are vague and insufficient.

 

2. the claiment disputes that the poc in these proceedings are insufficient and vague and would state that poc include concise statement of the facts on which the claiment relies as required cpr16(1)(a) A: Well - That's HER opinion - but no exact dates of when money was transferred, exact amounts of cash lent amounting to £1214 - how can that be "concise" and NOT "insufficient and vague"?

 

3. at paragragh 4 of the defence the defendant states that a copy of the purported agreement that the claimant cites in the poc has not been served with the claim form and further the defendant states at paragraph 6 of her defence that she on the 4th jan 2011 request discloser of information pursuant to cpr 31.14 and a further request for information under cpr18.

 

4. by letter on the 6th jan 2001 the claimant provided to the defendant both the responces to the defendants request for further information and responces to the defendants request for further particulars copies of which are exhibited herewith at pages 1-7. these rtesponces deal in detail with the defendants requests and to the extent to enable the defendant to fully plead her defence to which she has failed to do save for general statement at paragraph 1 that she neither admits nor deny any allegation made in the claiments poc and the claiment reserves her position as to make an application pursuant to cpr 24.2 for summary judgment on the basis that the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim or issue and b) there is no other compaelling reason why the case or issue should be disposed of at trail. A: NO - the agreements have NOT been provided - so te Defendant has NOT got the info required for her defence. The Claimant has NO chance of getting the summary judgement she threatens.

 

5. The claimant is unable to plead further as to the defendants defence as thay are merely submissions to the court and should be addressed in an appropriate application. A; not sure what this means? Hopefully DD or others can help here?

Hope this helps?

BD

PS - Is her lawyer really spelling "responses" (correct spelling) as "responces" (which is WRONG SPELLING!)?

[indianamachno]

Indy

 

My responses in bold below.

 

BD

 

Order

 

1. the claim to be fast track A: Got to be I suppose based on size of claim.

 

2. each party shall give to the other party standard discloser of documents by serving a disclosure statement together with list of documents no later than 14 march 2011 inspection of those documents by providing copies of documents so requested will take place no later than 7 days after its request is recieved. A; Fine

 

3. each party shall serve on the other party witness statements of all witnesses of fact on whom they intend to rely. they shall be simultaneous exchange of such statements no later than 4.00pm on 25th april. A; Fine

 

4. no expert evidence being necessary ,no party has permission to call or rely on expert evidence. A: Probably not required - but not sure if you should just accept this? Are they trying to avooid something that would harm them?

 

5. each party shall serve any request for clarification or further information based on any documents disclosed or statement served by another party no later than 14 days after disclosure or service. any such request shall be dealt within 14 dyas of service.A; Fine

 

6. each party must file a completed pre trail checklist no later than 16 may 2001 and the matter to be listed for trial with an estamated lengh of hearing of 3 hrs during the week commencing 13th june 2001.A; fine

 

7. costs in the case. A: OK - but I would dispute this has cost £5500 - and reserve right to have costs verified independently if you were to lose (WHICH YOU WON'T!).

 

Reply to defence

 

1.The defendant is defending this claim on the basis that the claiments statement of case is insufficiently particulised and does not comply with cpr part16. the defendant states that the POC are vague and insufficient.

 

2. the claiment disputes that the poc in these proceedings are insufficient and vague and would state that poc include concise statement of the facts on which the claiment relies as required cpr16(1)(a) A: Well - That's HER opinion - but no exact dates of when money was transferred, exact amounts of cash lent amounting to £1214 - how can that be "concise" and NOT "insufficient and vague"?

 

3. at paragragh 4 of the defence the defendant states that a copy of the purported agreement that the claimant cites in the poc has not been served with the claim form and further the defendant states at paragraph 6 of her defence that she on the 4th jan 2011 request discloser of information pursuant to cpr 31.14 and a further request for information under cpr18.

 

4. by letter on the 6th jan 2001 the claimant provided to the defendant both the responces to the defendants request for further information and responces to the defendants request for further particulars copies of which are exhibited herewith at pages 1-7. these rtesponces deal in detail with the defendants requests and to the extent to enable the defendant to fully plead her defence to which she has failed to do save for general statement at paragraph 1 that she neither admits nor deny any allegation made in the claiments poc and the claiment reserves her position as to make an application pursuant to cpr 24.2 for summary judgment on the basis that the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim or issue and b) there is no other compaelling reason why the case or issue should be disposed of at trail. A: NO - the agreements have NOT been provided - so te Defendant has NOT got the info required for her defence. The Claimant has NO chance of getting the summary judgement she threatens.

 

5. The claimant is unable to plead further as to the defendants defence as thay are merely submissions to the court and should be addressed in an appropriate application. A; not sure what this means? Hopefully DD or others can help here?

Hope this helps?

BD

PS - Is her lawyer really spelling "responses" (correct spelling) as "responces" (which is WRONG SPELLING!)?

 

No its me typing to fast and not correcting i think Hope to get ome feedback from others as i am not sure what happens now.

 

[indianamachno]

Need some advise about something I have only Just been told...Claiment mentions three witnesses in cpr and has now entered only two in her aq the third witness who is my ex has not been mentioned. Not sure if i should post up here so maybe i need to speak to a few of you in pm.

[diddydicky]

the judge will make any directions and set a date for exchange of witness statements trial etc

[debbbbsy]

hi, the judge should now refer to your draft order directions. he will make a request to the claimant to provide proof that the claim is accurate/enforceable. you will recieve a copy of this. He'll give them 21 days to comply.

[diddydicky]

thanks bigdebtor- i have been away for a few days and being online in a hotel room is not the same as at home

[diddydicky]

Need some advise about something I have only Just been told...Claiment mentions three witnesses in cpr and has now entered only two in her aq the third witness who is my ex has not been mentioned. Not sure if i should post up here so maybe i need to speak to a few of you in pm.

 

i think it is a safe bet that the claimant- nor their sols are monitoring this thread- it would be better (IMO) to keep comments on thread and not in PM's in order that any advice can a/ be challenged if it is wrong (remember we are not experts) and b/ so that other caggers gain the benefit of the thread

[Undercover-Elsa]

Hi DD,

As you say, it's better to discuss on here.

Without giving away too many details, until Indi decides to include them here, do you think it would be useful to get the ex to sign a witness statement for Indi re the incident in the pm, to counteract the claimant's witness statement?

Seems like incitement to perjury, and indicates that the other witnesses have been induced to commit perjury...

Or would it complicate matters too much?

 

Elsa x

[Bigdebtor]

I totally agree as much as possible should be discussed in open forum - not just because I wasn't included in any pm's - but because I agree both with DD's plea to allow others to benefit from all the info/advice in posts and his warning about the need for open monitoring of non-expert advice. Actually I wish there was more open monitoring of EXPERT advice too! Just think of the word EXPERT and it's two components - EX - a "has been" and SPURT - a drip under pressure!

 

Nevertheless I've been thinking about what has been posted recently on this. Given Indi is no longer denying (at least in the official version?) signing the card statement (with the statement showing sum "owed" already hand written?) then is there any mileage in bringing up (if indeed she COULD DO SO?) the fact her ex was initially mentioned as a witness and no longer is - or if it was signed in the office or her kitchen - and exactly when it WAS signed and in front of whom?

 

The "pro" is that it shows the claimant's memory is faulty - or at least selective - by removing a potentially hostile witness. The "con" is the claimant has been put to strict proof that the amount "signed for" matches the total amounts advanced (no evidence yet supllied despite CPR requests) less payments made. If she can't prove all of this then does it matter who (if anyone) "witnessed" Indi signing this card statement - and when/where? Also even if Indi did sign it with the (wrong) amount showing then at that time, then as a vulnerable heavily indebted employee surely she was entitled to accept her boss had got her sums right and was not just out to screw her?

 

If we stray away from the SIMPLE facts which the claimant has to PROVE then are we not in danger of showing the Judge a very acrimonious situation and he/she may form the opinion that Indi is simply wriggling out of her debts because of the subsequent big fall out?

 

I know I've given more questions than answers but I think there is merit in ensuring that a weasly claimant and/or her lawyer doesn't trap Indi into "losing it" on the day!

 

Hopefully when the claimant fails to provide the evidence called for the whole matter will be dropped!

 

BD

Edited February 11, 2011 by Bigdebtor

[diddydicky]

personally- and others may disagree- provided one is telling the truth- there is no harm in stating the facts on the thread since-if the other party in this matter saw them- which is unlikely- it would do nothing but persuade them that they were on to a loser and would discontinue (they are going to see the evidence soon enough anyway)

 

the fact that even now- they have failed to pick up on the £21,000 v £23,000 matter (assuming that india has not got her knickers in a twist) shows that they have no knowledge of this forum- else they would have applied to amend the POC by now

 

someone (and i hope it is not india) - is going to look a right chump

[Bigdebtor]

DD - Totally agree - much better that all facts are aired here so other side can withdraw earlier and more cheaply IF they see this and hav ethe sense to realise they've no chance!

 

BD

 

PS - We've really got to stop agreeing like this - people will talk!

[Undercover-Elsa]

Get a room, you two!

[Bigdebtor]

I've just learned DD had a hotel room earlier this week - and he didn't let on until now!

[Undercover-Elsa]

Ermm..do you have any memory of the last few days BD..or is it just a blank?.....

 

I'm off to hide behind the sofa now before DD gets back....

[Bigdebtor]

I am totally innocent and have an alibi too! Whoever was in that hotel room with DD was NOT me!

[DonkeyB]

So it was just too much brandy that made your **** sore?

[indianamachno]

Stop filling up my thread with hotel room talk lol, we all know DD was there on business! ))

 

Anyway what i posted in pm was that in the cpr request the claimant named three witnesses including my ex, now since then and before her aq was sent in she approached my ex asking him to be a witness for her , he said no because he was not there and he would not lie in court for her, her answer was,"You owe me for all i have done for you over the years and the others do not have a problem with it and your not even with the stupid xxxx anymore so what does it matter"

So now her aq has been sent in with only two witnesses being used as my ex has refused point blank.

 

I dont know If I should do anything with this or leave it.

 

I am 99.9% sure it is £21,000 as there is nothing else in my bank statements so if i am wrong im screwed but i will be the only one to blame. will the judge throw it out if she can not produce the proof of the origional loan she is claiming is £23,000?

 

Thanks guys and DD I hope you enjoyed your course

 

xx

[DonkeyB]

"You owe me for all i have done for you over the years and the others do not have a problem with it and your not even with the stupid xxxx anymore so what does it matter"

 

Now, if YOU could get that in a witness statement, and disclose it to them, I think they might run a mile. That is attempting to pervert the course of justice.

[indianamachno]

I know but I am a little worried because she is a nasty piece of work so unsure what do do I really am, I dont think my ex would blink an eye and would do it but its another road..

[DonkeyB]

I think it’s a very good road and an excellent weapon. After all, this person is trying to ruin you! Fight with everything!

[Bigdebtor]

Donkey - Exactly what I was thinking! That's me agreeing with YOU now too!

 

Indi - would your ex give you a ws outlining how he was approached by her and what she said? If so, then that coupled with her previous assertion that your ex WAS a witness could be dynamite! I would wait and see if the case gets dropped because she CAN'T produce the £23k and £1214 evidence. You can then decide whether to extract revenge (by reporting all of this to police - including the alleged tampering of the signed credit card statement) or let sleeping dogs lie - but given what you had said earlier about broken windows and car vandalsim I might be tempted to drop it - but only if she drops the case against you.

 

A former Scottish MSP is currently spending 3 years in Barlinnie because he thought he was above the Law, could dishonestly claim £200k in libel damages and get his colleagues to lie for him in court (twice!). He will also probably be bankrupted because of the expensive civil cases he forced his opponents to defend.

 

Courts do not like perjury or attempts to pervert the course of justice. I doubt if her pals would see it all the way through if they were aware of the potential ramifications.

 

BD

 

PS - Indi - Sorry others have sought to blacken the good names of DDand me on here :mad2: - For the avoidance of doubt I would stress I am a happily :-Dmarried man (but then so are many Lib Dem MP's). Is that actually avoidance of doubt?

[DonkeyB]

Lib Dems? Well **** on my chest!

[indianamachno]

I am not going to incriminate myself lol.....I think your all amazing.....Apart from th Lib Dem MP's lol

[Undercover-Elsa]

I totally agree.

 

(she said from behind the sofa..)