Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The private submersible industry was shaken after the implosion of the OceanGate Titan sub last year.View the full article
    • further polished WS using above suggestions and also included couple of more modifications highlighted in orange are those ok to include?   Background   1.1  The Defendant received the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the 06th of January 2020 following the vehicle being parked at Arla Old Dairy, South Ruislip on the 05th of December 2019.   Unfair PCN   2.1  On 19th December 2023 the Defendant sent the Claimant's solicitors a CPR request.  As shown in Exhibit 1 (pages 7-13) sent by the solicitors the signage displayed in their evidence clearly shows a £60.00 parking charge notice (which will be reduced to £30 if paid within 14 days of issue).  2.2  Yet the PCN sent by the Claimant is for a £100.00 parking charge notice (reduced to £60 if paid within 30 days of issue).   2.3        The Claimant relies on signage to create a contract.  It is unlawful for the Claimant to write that the charge is £60 on their signs and then send demands for £100.    2.4        The unlawful £100 charge is also the basis for the Claimant's Particulars of Claim.  No Locus Standi  3.1  I do not believe a contract with the landowner, that is provided following the defendant’s CPR request, gives MET Parking Services a right to bring claims in their own name. Definition of “Relevant contract” from the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4,  2 [1] means a contract Including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land between the driver and a person who is-   (a) the owner or occupier of the land; or   (b) Authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land. According to https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44   For a contract to be valid, it requires a director from each company to sign and then two independent witnesses must confirm those signatures.   3.2  The Defendant requested to see such a contract in the CPR request.  The fact that no contract has been produced with the witness signatures present means the contract has not been validly executed. Therefore, there can be no contract established between MET Parking Services and the motorist. Even if “Parking in Electric Bay” could form a contract (which it cannot), it is immaterial. There is no valid contract.  Illegal Conduct – No Contract Formed   4.1 At the time of writing, the Claimant has failed to provide the following, in response to the CPR request from myself.   4.2        The legal contract between the Claimant and the landowner (which in this case is Standard Life Investments UK) to provide evidence that there is an agreement in place with landowner with the necessary authority to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation.   4.3 Proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and country Planning Act 1990. Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under this Act and no contract can be formed where criminality is involved.   4.4        I also do not believe the claimant possesses these documents.   No Keeper Liability   5.1        The defendant was not the driver at the time and date mentioned in the PCN and the claimant has not established keeper liability under schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012. In this matter, the defendant puts it to the claimant to produce strict proof as to who was driving at the time.   5.2 The claimant in their Notice To Keeper also failed to comply with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 section 9[2][f] while mentioning “the right to recover from the keeper so much of that parking charge as remains unpaid” where they did not include statement “(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)”.     5.3         The claimant did not mention parking period, times on the photographs are separate from the PCN and in any case are that arrival and departure times not the parking period since their times include driving to and from the parking space as a minimum and can include extra time to allow pedestrians and other vehicles to pass in front.    Protection of Freedoms Act 2012   The notice must -   (a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;  22. In the persuasive judgement K4GF167G - Premier Park Ltd v Mr Mathur - Horsham County Court – 5 January 2024 it was on this very point that the judge dismissed this claim.  5.4  A the PCN does not comply with the Act the Defendant as keeper is not liable.  No Breach of Contract   6.1       No breach of contract occurred because the PCN and contract provided as part of the defendant’s CPR request shows different post code, PCN shows HA4 0EY while contract shows HA4 0FY. According to PCN defendant parked on HA4 0EY which does not appear to be subject to the postcode covered by the contract.  6.2         The entrance sign does not mention anything about there being other terms inside the car park so does not offer a contract which makes it only an offer to treat,  Interest  7.1  It is unreasonable for the Claimant to delay litigation for  Double Recovery   7.2  The claim is littered with made-up charges.  7.3  As noted above, the Claimant's signs state a £60 charge yet their PCN is for £100.  7.4  As well as the £100 parking charge, the Claimant seeks recovery of an additional £70.  This is simply a poor attempt to circumvent the legal costs cap at small claims.  7.5 Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated “Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones- Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates (...) in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared (…) the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.”  7.6 In Claim Nos. F0DP806M and F0DP201T, District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating ''It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverabl15e under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4)) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''  7.7 In the persuasive case of G4QZ465V - Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson – Bradford County Court -2 July 2020 (Exhibit 4) the judge had decided that Excel had won. However, due to Excel adding on the £60 the Judge dismissed the case.  7.8        The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.   7.9        It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).   In Conclusion   8.1        I invite the court to dismiss the claim.  Statement of Truth  I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.   
    • Well the difference is that in all our other cases It was Kev who was trying to entrap the motorist so sticking two fingers up to him and daring him to try court was from a position of strength. In your case, sorry, you made a mistake so you're not in the position of strength.  I've looked on Google Maps and the signs are few & far between as per Kev's MO, but there is an entrance sign saying "Pay & Display" (and you've admitted in writing that you knew you had to pay) and the signs by the payment machines do say "Sea View Car Park" (and you've admitted in writing you paid the wrong car park ... and maybe outed yourself as the driver). Something I missed in my previous post is that the LoC is only for one ticket, not two. Sorry, but it's impossible to definitively advise what to so. Personally I'd probably gamble on Kev being a serial bottler of court and reply with a snotty letter ridiculing the signage (given you mentioned the signage in your appeal) - but it is a gamble.  
    • No! What has happened is that your pix were up-to-date: 5 hours' maximum stay and £100 PCN. The lazy solicitors have sent ancient pictures: 4 hours' maximum stay and £60 PCN. Don't let on!  Let them be hoisted by their own lazy petard in the court hearing (if they don't bottle before).
    • Thanks for all the suggestions so far I will amend original WS and send again for review.  While looking at my post at very beginning when I submitted photos of signs around the car park I noticed that it says 5 hours maximum stay while the signage sent by solicitor shows 4 hours maximum stay but mine is related to electric bay abuse not sure if this can be of any use in WS.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Abuse of process - Henderson v Henderson 1843 cited


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4391 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

Some interesting points (as you can see from my earlier posts, I'm in the exact opposite posiition, I'm at a Summary Judgment/Strike Out application hearing on Monday.)

 

In my case, the original claim was struck out (the course someone should follow is a set aside application, in my case, the claimant did that, but this too was struck out, his leaves only an appeal left which he didnt folow).

 

The troble with re-ligating is gthat it renders the strike out worthless and surely this is not what the courts intended, it is intetrested to note that in cases of discontinuance, there is options under CPR 38.7 to ask permission to 'have another go', there appears to be no such provisions for judged/struck out cases so one must assume that there really is a bar to further action (except under esceptional circumstances and even then its not clear whether someone should just start another case or seek the courts permission first (prob a wise move).

 

I really cant see that the OP here has any chance of success so thought should be taken of how to get out of this with the minumum of cost.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading the OP's posts, it half sounds like he believes that he failed the course as the Crane Operator was not performing his job properly?

 

In which case, I suspect, if the Operator was an employee of the Trainer, then there could be a cause of action.

 

But for some reason, he appears to be attempting to sue the Trainer, because whichever educational board runs/oversee's NVQ's in this particular industry will not allow you to do an NVQ without passing a particular course, via this trainer which the OP did not pass. And appears to be basing a claim on the Human Right to "Education" in which case, I should think it is WELL outside the jurisdiction of a normal, county court & the CCJ process?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

andydd, it is up to the court to decide what to do with the case and if the strike out was due to improperly pleaded proceedings, then why should the claimant be prejudiced by this and suffer no access to justice because they are not experts in law for example. The court has the power under CPR r. 3.4(6) to introduce finality to the strike out. Also, a strike out cannot be compared to discontinuance as that is the claimant conceding whilst a strike out is not the will of the claimant. Apologies if I sound like I am mooting.

 

assistedblonde, I would like to paraphrase what I stated with some bits in bold to show the many qualifiers as I believe the point of my paragraph was missed:

 

I think the OP should go seek professional guidance with all their documentation as I am not even sure there is a cause of action as mentioned but if there is a cause of action, it will probably lie on contract, hence my questions above, and maybe the tort of negligence. However right now, I am (sic) can't really see either except an unhappy student unfortunately.
So I am not sure why you replied to me in that context but I think there was a gap between what I said and what was interpreted.

 

FYI, I am sure you know, the tort of negligence protects interests in physical and mental health, reputation, property interests, economic relationships and public rights so I would not discount the fact that there is no tort.

 

I would not be confident to advise the OP based on their ramblings above as there is no documentation or coherence in their posts to back up their story either way hence go see a lawyer, it might be the best money they ever spent.

 

It is an interesting from a theoretical point of view though which is why maybe it has peaked a lot of people's interest including mine but my understanding is that the crane operator was employed by the trainer for the purposes of the test but I might be mistaken as I got lost a few times in the OP's posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hmmmh1978. Good points but there is of course the other sides point of view which may be why should he suffer the hassle of being vexxed again for the same course of action.

 

Also not really sure that CPR 3.4 (6) adds finality, it allows comments that the claim is without merit to be added and also a civil restraint.

 

I think discontinuance does have some relevance because there is a scenario where a claimant instead of discontinuing a claim can simply not pay a fee for example and just watch the claim be struck out (I bought this up in my SJ claim as I suspect this may be the case).

 

Anyway Monday evening Ill be a lot more sure as my hearing will be concluded, although I believe I have a stronger case than the defendant here, as there have been two strike outs and also I have proof that the claim would eventually fail due to technicalities in issuing demands for payment.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey andydd, I hope that my point of view above was not taken as a personal attack on the merits of your case. Not at all, and if it was seen as thus, I humbly apologise for not clarifying myself better. I was only talking about the OP's case and his particular set of circumstances and as you rightly mentioned, there are other sides points of view. The judge will decide based on the facts of the case, whether a case should be struck out or not, and if yes, whether the appeal should go through or a new claim entertained. No two cases are the same hence why a court may allow it in one instance and not in the other.

 

I am sure we can debate these points to and fro however it would be so much better in a pub. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope not at all. Its interested to discuss points, especially as I am involved in a SJ/SO case, (although there is little I can change at this late date even if I wanted to), have you any experience of a SJ/SO hearing ?, I'm under the impression that no oral evidence will be given, (although I believe my written Statement of Case and evidence are strong enough), I also note that the respondant in my case hasnt filled any response (as per CPR 24.5) which cant be good for him !

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

You will have to present the written evidence hence the CPR 32.6 rule, no oral evidence.

 

It is a matter of individual taste of the Master or DJ but the general rule is as follows.

 

As the applicant you will open the case which will consist of:

 

- introducing yourself and the advocate/solicitor for the respondent (common courtesy but as a LiP, you may be forgiven for this oversight).

- show what documentary evidence is before the court and refer to your skeleton argument if you have done one.

- You will mention points in your witness statement and authorities in favour of your case.

- You will deal with the respondent's arguments as well as points that the court may want clarification on.

 

Then the respondent's representatives will:

 

- then reply and base their case on their skeleton argument if present.

- they will also draw attention to their witness statement, weaknesses in your case and your authorities.

 

You are normally allowed a right to reply so make notes.

 

However, as mentioned, the judge can vary or miss out any step they want and actually change the order of the steps as well as interrupt and ask you a lot of questions to aid their clarification.

 

Because you are a LiP, it should be rather informal but don't take it for granted that you will get an easy ride.

 

Good luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.

 

Well, there has been no response at all from the respondent so Im not sure how they can bring up any argument in court now, its too late.

 

Think Ive got all bases covered which are :-

 

1. Claim is identical to previous claim about a year ago, same amount. (Ive quoted CPR 24 and CPR 3.4)

2. There is no real evidence, just a claim form stating I owe £x

3. In previous claim, a Peremptory 'unless' order was given, pay fee.

4. He didnt pay fee, claim struck out.

5. He applied for set aside, moaning he was busy, struck out by diff. judge for lack of evidence CPR 3.9

6. No appeal was made.

7. Judgment in my favour (for main claim, no mention of his counterclaim, but why would there be as it was struck out).

8. Now identical claim made

8. Ive pointed out all the above plus CPR 38.7 and res judicata - henderson v henderson, etc

 

also

 

9. His service charge demands are all invalid (wrong font size !), so nothing is actually owing, so another reason why claim will fail.

 

So hopefully thats enough to see it in my favour, weve both been before the judge before and Ive been mostly succesfull (in ground rent & service charge issues).

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

hmmh, yes I may misread what you were saying, (having a really assisted blonde day) get what you are saying now and i agree that the OP needs to take legal advice, there are a number of these courses aome running for a day for experienced operators and others for 4 days for newbies, but they all say you have to pass to get a red card and you cant get a blue one until you have a red, its a bit like a driving test you cannot take a practical test until you have passed the theory, and people do fail.

 

But I do like the idea of a pub debate :lol:

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading the OP's posts, it half sounds like he believes that he failed the course as the Crane Operator was not performing his job properly?

 

In which case, I suspect, if the Operator was an employee of the Trainer, then there could be a cause of action.

 

But for some reason, he appears to be attempting to sue the Trainer, because whichever educational board runs/oversee's NVQ's in this particular industry will not allow you to do an NVQ without passing a particular course, via this trainer which the OP did not pass. And appears to be basing a claim on the Human Right to "Education" in which case, I should think it is WELL outside the jurisdiction of a normal, county court & the CCJ process?

 

I would like to begin by thanking hmmh1978 for his earlier thought provoking post.

 

Caled, the crane operator was not just failing to do his job properly, he was refusing to do his job as well. The assessor who failed me said I had given a wrong hand signal and that the objects being moved were placed incorrectly. Lets look at both these reasons for failing me. there is a set standard of hand signals. If I didn't signal from this set, the crane operator would do nothing until he recognised a signal to do something. Therefore there is no such thing as a incorrect hand signal. It stands to reason if the crane operator was ignoring my signals or deliberately moving objects incorrectly they would be placed incorrectly.

 

The crane operator couldn't behave in this manner without the assistance of his colleagues (the assessor and the instructor).

 

To further illustrate my point, I'am partly employed as a traffic marshall (I direct traffic on and off a construction site). Anyone with a hole in their a*** could do it. There is a site rule which states all traffic leaving the site must turn left. But turning right is more convenient. I direct traffic left but it passes me on my right. Am I responsible for the vehicle turning right?

 

 

 

Assistedblonde, there are slinger\signaller course that guarantees a pass as long as the company putting the student through the course requests it. This is how I got my traffic marshall license.

 

A stay of proceedings or a discontinuance are my best bet unless I can find someone to do my PoC. No solicitor will take the claim as they deem it small fry and too complicated to plead.

Edited by pop_gun
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all.

 

I know Ive hijacked this thread a bit.

 

Ive just returned from my Summary Judgment/Strike Out hearing.

 

I won :) and it went pretty much as I expected, (Solictor screwed up and hadnt filed any evidence). Judge wouldnt allow a stay so gave judgment in my favour.

 

Point she raised were, original claim struck out, they asked for set aside..this too struck out..they shoulkd of appealed if they didnt like decision, instead they waited n started new claim..this was an abuse of process. I did quote Henderson v Henderson but didnt even get that far.

 

Bit dissapointed with my costs..only £200..and Judge was under impression that Litigant in Person rate is still £9.25. she was wrong ..its been increased to £18 !!

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

You should have told her its been raised and showed the proof andy.

 

Congrats though. Just shows persistence and well thought out research goes a very long way :)

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats andydd however I didn’t expect any other result.

 

If the judge was not aware of the LiP rates, it stands to reason that they were also weak in other areas of law and the developments in it. :wink:

 

@ pop_gun, apologies however I cannot give you a recommendation either way as your case needs someone to actually go through the documentation. Most solicitors will draw up the particulars of claim for you if you accept the hourly rate outside of the claim as this is small claim and thus fixed costs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You should have told her its been raised and showed the proof andy.

 

Congrats though. Just shows persistence and well thought out research goes a very long way :)

 

Didnt have the proof with me..I assumed being a Judge she'd keep upto date with current law and CPR developments, didnt actually affect my costs as she decided that a solicitor would charge £300 and I could have 2/3's of that (she knew about the 2/3's rule but not new LiP !)...plus some court fees.

 

Cant compalin though, went according to plan, their claim struck out and £280 for me to spend :)

 

Ive written a letter to her/the court pointing out the new rules (57th CPR Amendment) so maybe that will help future LiP's

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a bit more to the story, the original claim was struck out but there was another claim attached to the original claim. The original claim was the lead claim. The judge despite the second claim not having a defence. The second defendant did a acknowledgement of service, but never defended the claim. Can a DJ strike out a claim which hasn't been defended?

 

On the court order for the original claim it only states the original claim struck out, not the second. Has the DJ erred and can I still enter judgement on the second claim?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a bit more to the story, the original claim was struck out but there was another claim attached to the original claim. The original claim was the lead claim. The judge despite the second claim not having a defence. The second defendant did a acknowledgement of service, but never defended the claim. Can a DJ strike out a claim which hasn't been defended?

 

On the court order for the original claim it only states the original claim struck out, not the second. Has the DJ erred and can I still enter judgement on the second claim?

 

 

What does the actual strike out Order say again?

 

If it just says something like "the Claimant's claim be struck out" and both Defendants are named in the top right box then it is probably struck out against both.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What does the actual strike out Order say again?

 

If it just says something like "the Claimant's claim be struck out" and both Defendants are named in the top right box then it is probably struck out against both.

 

No mention of the second defendant on the court order. I made the second claim through MCOL.

 

Sorry to go over this, but I was wondering if there was a court case involving responisibility for a person's own actions over that of someone directing them to do something. In other words when are we legally held accountable for our actions.

 

P.S can I have the claim transfered to the high court via a appeal?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't understand the part about the two defendants and two claims so Ganymede is a smarter person than I am.

 

The point about the appeal is that at the end of the hearing once the judge has given the judgement, you have to ask for permission to appeal. Regardless of their answer, you should also get form N460 which should list the reasons for refusing or allowing the appeal. You will need that to lodge it with your appeal bundle. If you did not do that, and it has been past 21 days since the judgment with no application for an extension, then you may be too late for an appeal.

 

HMMH

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what pop_gun is saying is that he issued one claim and then later separately issued against a different Defendant but for a similar/same claim. Hence two separate claims with two separate claim numbers for essentially the same claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The defendant allows other companies to perform it's slinger/signaller course. when the first defendant stitch me up, I took the course with the second defendant. The second defendant found out I had taken the course with the first defendant as all students have to be registered on the first defendants servers. Because I had passed the theory test my details were still active and the second defendant couldn't register me as a new student. They phoned up the first defendant. The defendant employs the same people to conduct the test ANYWHERE in england. So when the second defendant phoned the first defendant they spoke to the people directly responsible for failing me. The second defendant refused to train any of the students until the last day of training. I was the only student to fail the test. There is more to this but I think you get the general idea.

The second defendant hasn't defended the claim because it believes the two students who passed would act as witnesses against them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Court's power to make order of it's own initiative.

 

3.3 (4)

 

The court may make an order of it's own initiative without hearing the parties or giving them an opportunity to make representations.

 

Judging by this the Judge can throw out any claim he or she likes regardless of whether the claim has been defended or not.

 

What stops a Judge from abusing his\her initiative?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Courts may use 3.4 to strike out of their own inititiave....I was hoping they would do this in my case, but they didnt so I had to make an summary judgment/cpr 3.4 strike out application.

 

As for what stops a judge from abusing it ?. Why would they ? In any event you are always fee to make a set aside application.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...