Arrow Global Claim Reinstated After Strike Out - Statute Barred Question?

[madi's mum]

Just a quick question, currently being pursued through the courts for a debt by Arrow Global, the case was struck out by the judge in May 2012 due to Arrow Global’s failure to comply with court orders.

 

In December 2012, over 6 months later, Arrow applied to have the case reinstated as they pleaded an administration error had led to them missing the court’s deadline. The District Judge duly obliged and reinstated the case.

 

Since the case was struck out, the requisite 6 years has passed since I last made a payment and I have not acknowledged the debt to them.

 

Can anyone clarify whether the reinstated case is treated as a continuation of the struck out case and therefore has been brought within the 6 years or is it treated as a new one, and if this is the case can I use the Statute Barred legislation to stop the proceedings?

 

Any pointers with this would be much appreciated.

 

Cheers

Madi's Mum

[madi's mum]

polite bump please!

[AndyOrch]

Hi madis mum

 

It would depend on how they requested relief from sanctions CPR 3.9....was you served a copy of their application notice? Is it detailed within the order as to why the Judge has allowed the reinstatement ...CPR?

 

 

Regards

 

Andy

[madi's mum]

Hi Andyorch

 

Thanks for the response.

 

Their application notice to have the case re-instated included under 3. What order are you asking the court to make and why:

 

"The Claimant seeks an order for the claim to be reinstted, pursuant to the overriding objective, CPR r3.1 (2) (m) and CPR 3.9.

 

Due to an administrative oversight by the Claimant the deadline stipulated by the court to comply with directions was overlooked."

 

The Order from the Judge was as follows:

 

"IT IS ORDERED THAT

 

1. The claim shall be reinstated.

2. The Claimants shall by 4.00pm on XX XXX 2013 file and serve an amended Particulars of Claim full pleaded and particularised.

3. Permission to the Defendant to file and serve an amended defence by 4pm on XX XXXX 2013.

4. Both parties shall file and serve completed Allocation Questionnaires by 4pm on XX XXX 2013.

5. Costs of today reserved."

 

Cheers

 

Madi's Mum

[AndyOrch]

I personally dont think that " overlooked " is an acceptable reason or evident for such an application.

 

If you look at 3.9

 

3.9

(1) On an application for relief from any sanction imposed for a failure to comply with any rule, practice direction or court order the court will consider all the circumstances including –

(a) the interests of the administration of justice;

(b) whether the application for relief has been made promptly;

© whether the failure to comply was intentional;

(d) whether there is a good explanation for the failure;

(e) the extent to which the party in default has complied with other rules, practice directions, court orders and any relevant preaction protocol(GL);

(f) whether the failure to comply was caused by the party or his legal representative;

(g) whether the trial date or the likely trial date can still be met if relief is granted;

(h) the effect which the failure to comply had on each party; and

(i) the effect which the granting of relief would have on each party.

(2) An application for relief must be supported by evidence.

 

Does the order allow for objection...7 days to set a side vary or stay?

 

Andy

[madi's mum]

No, the order is just as stated in 4#.

[AndyOrch]

Okay then so back to your initial point...as the DJ has seen fit to allow Council to overlook the Court Process even though its their chosen profession then the claim was never struck out and therefore the clock stopped when the initial claim was submitted.

Therefore no its not statute barred but I would be hitting them for costs up to the strike out if they wish to proceed.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[madi's mum]

Thanks for taking a look - appreciate your help as always.

I have to submit the AQ by Wednesday so I will keep this in mind when doing so - I have already submitted an amended defence but I think I may be on shaky groung and it may be prudent to try to settle this with Arrow prior to a court hearing.

 

Kind regards

Madi's Mum

[AndyOrch]

DId you claim/awarded costs on the strike out?

[madi's mum]

No, I was just relieved to have it struck out, didn't want to push it as the DJ had been quite open throughout the procedings that he would not allow me to win on a technicality - the main thrust of my defence being a failure on the Claimant's part to supply a true copy of the executed agreement, default notice, notice of assignement etc.

[AndyOrch]

Then that must be your continued approach.....as an aside what directions did they fail to comply with in round1? Also what is the time frame from Strike out to application?

 

Regards

 

Andy

[madi's mum]

Hi sorry I'm at work at the moment so am away from my files - I know the claim was struck out in April 2012 and I received the application for reinstatement at the end of December 2012. I will post up the other details tonight when I have access to them.

[AndyOrch]

Hi sorry I'm at work at the moment so am away from my files - I know the claim was struck out in April 2012 and I received the application for reinstatement at the end of December 2012. I will post up the other details tonight when I have access to them.

 

 

 

I personally dont think that " overlooked " is an acceptable reason or evident for such an application.

 

If you look at 3.9

 

3.9

(1) On an application for relief from any sanction imposed for a failure to comply with any rule, practice direction or court order the court will consider all the circumstances including –

(a) the interests of the administration of justice;

(b) whether the application for relief has been made promptly; 9 months

© whether the failure to comply was intentional;

(d) whether there is a good explanation for the failure;

(e) the extent to which the party in default has complied with other rules, practice directions, court orders and any relevant preaction protocol(GL);

(f) whether the failure to comply was caused by the party or his legal representative;

(g) whether the trial date or the likely trial date can still be met if relief is granted;

(h) the effect which the failure to comply had on each party; and

(i) the effect which the granting of relief would have on each party.

(2) An application for relief must be supported by evidence.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[madi's mum]

I totally agree Andy, unfortunately was unable to attend the application hearing in person so I submitted my objections tothe reinstatement in writing, I did use the legislation you are quoting, I highlighted the excessive time between strike out and their application, I also drew attention to 2 other instances of non compliance on their part and also as you have stated that this is their business and that they are the 'professionals' it just seems that this particular judge is determined to let them have their day in court!

[AndyOrch]

Ok let them have it but you can raise all we have discussed further in the proceedings.