Contraventions of the Data Protection Act - NHS Trust

[totally_pennyless]

Judgment Hearing ?

 

I thought you had already requested judgment 4 weeks ago?

 

Yes and got it. It is a 10 minute Interlocutory Judgment Hearing to discuss how much they are going to cough up.

 

Ignore the above...default judgment from CCBC I assume so transferring it to your local CC for execution?

 

Indeed.

[AndyOrch]

Interlocutory hearings are normally conducted for Provisional; interim; temporary; not final judgments; that which intervenes between the beginning and the end of a lawsuit or proceeding to either decide a particular point or matter that is not the final issue of the entire controversy or prevent irreparable harm during the pendency of the lawsuit.

 

Also called procedural hearings. During inter partes proceedings the Registrar will have to take decisions on procedural issues, for example a request for an extension of time for filing evidence. At any time during the proceedings one or more parties may regard the preliminary view taken by the Registrar on a procedural issue as being detrimental to them.

 

Is tha a phrase you have added or does it actually state Interlocutory Judgment Hearing ?

[totally_pennyless]

It states Interlocutory Judgment Hearing, see attached. The directions seem to suggest it is to conclude on a sum of boodle.

 

You were totally right!! I just rang the court and the Judge has told them to apply to set aside the judgment first. He told them not to be so brainless...

Notice of Hearing_Redacted.pdf

[BazzaS]

You were totally right!! I just rang the court and the Judge has told them to apply to set aside the judgment first. He basically told them not to be so brainless...

 

I was going to ask if they had legal representation or had erred due to being self-represented, but:

 

 

Yes, I only received that directly from the solicitors the other side instructed.

 

Here's hoping (for your sake!) they don't change solicitors

 

Or perhaps due to a trainee not being supervised? Either way, it isn't harming your position

I wonder if the judge will question them on it at the hearing, one can only hope they are in a playful mood (or want to know why the other side is wasting the court's time with inappropriate applications....)

[totally_pennyless]

Indeed. I don't think it was a trainee though. They are a large law firm too *cough* fieldfishers. Oops, did that just slip out...

[BazzaS]

They certainly have trainees

http://careers.fieldfisher.com/library/docs/brochure_new.pdf

 

It isn't unheard of for trainees to "ghost", so things go out with the supervisor's name on but the work done by the trainee. Of course, the supervisor is meant to check it ........

(This being a general comment, as I have no knowledge of the specific practice at any particular firm)

 

One wonders how the error occurred : you may never find out unless the judge enquires

[totally_pennyless]

I see.

 

I suspect what happened (though only speculation) is that the respective solicitor does not have a particularly good grasp of the respective law called into question (nor the CPR it would seem) and was overly keen for the court to assess the merits of the case for him.

[legalistic]

totally-pennyless, I would not get your hopes up for the hearing if they are represented and you are not. Procedure is not everything.

[totally_pennyless]

If the hearing is on the 29th that does not leave a lot of time to draft a defence, apply to set aside the judgment and get a decision on that application does it? I imagine they will get the court's letter tomorrow at the very earliest.

 

Would the court not need my submissions on that application?

 

Default judgment was entered on the 11th February. That means that circa 5 weeks have already elapsed.

 

totally-pennyless, I would not get your hopes up for the hearing if they are represented and you are not. Procedure is not everything.

 

The Interlocutory Judgment Hearing? They would surely need to make a set aside application before then?

[legalistic]

Yes, and they will. There is more than enough time. On strike out, lawyers love to notify the other side that that is what they are going to do. They do it to intimidate.

[AndyOrch]

Reading between the lines and as this claim involves reference to Equality Act 2010.....it is rather complex and specialist...I must admit my alarm bells were ringing when I saw Interlocutory Judgment Hearing...as this is not a normal transfer out of CCBC to local county court purley for execution purposes ?

 

Was this a part 8 claim totally_pennyless ?

 

Did you issue it through CCBC Northampton?

 

Andy

[totally_pennyless]

Reading between the lines and as this claim involves reference to Equality Act 2010.....it is rather complex and specialist...I must admit my alarm bells were ringing when I saw Interlocutory Judgment Hearing...as this is not a normal transfer out of CCBC to local county court purley for execution purposes ?

 

Was this a part 8 claim totally_pennyless ?

 

Did you issue it through CCBC Northampton?

 

Andy

 

The claim was issue to the County Court Money Claims Centre (CCMCC) then transferred.

 

I don't believe it was a part 8 claim.

 

Yes, and they will. There is more than enough time. On strike out, lawyers love to notify the other side that that is what they are going to do. They do it to intimidate.

 

We will soon find out. I wish them the best of luck with the set aside application (if that ever turns up) as they are certainly going to need it.

 

I am sure they love to intimidate but their efforts were futile in my case. All they have done is waste time and money on a strike out application and made themselves look more inefficient to the court.

 

totally-pennyless, I would not get your hopes up for the hearing if they are represented and you are not. Procedure is not everything.

 

I wish them luck with running a "procedure isn't everything" argument.

 

I have successfully made submissions unrepresented in an Employment Tribunal where I have been up against two barristers at a time - not too phased.

 

It ain't over until the fat lady sings but I get the impression she is getting prepped.

[andydd]

Indeed. I don't think it was a trainee though. They are a large law firm too *cough* fieldfishers. Oops, did that just slip out...

 

That's what I thought, the solicitors appear to be clueless, so it looks like there may be a set aside hearing, if so you would have a strong case that a solicitor should behave professionally and not miss deadline, I was in same position, the claim against me was struck out as the solicitor forgot to pay the fee on time, the judge concluded that simply forgetting was not good enough and set aside denied.

[totally_pennyless]

I hope you are right.

[legalistic]

totally pennyless, is this a discrimination claim against an employer ? You speak of having been in the Employment Tribunal. I hope that was a completely different case as you can't sue again in the county court.

[totally_pennyless]

Hi,

 

Nope. This is a claim against a service provider. The claim in the Employment Tribunal was a few years ago and had nothing to do with this.

[totally_pennyless]

I have just called the court and I'm told the other side has recently applied to set aside the default judgment (a day or so ago).

 

I am seriously hoping the Judge does not bend over backwards for them (in this case it would be doing backward somersaults). If he/she does I am afraid I would not be surprised - I have lost faith in the civil judiciary.

[totally_pennyless]

The court has listed the application for the 29th (Tuesday).

 

To sum up, they assert they 'assumed' the claim was not properly served due to the fact that I did not specify a sum on the form N1 (I am advised that I did not need to). They concede this was an 'oversight'. Oversight = inefficiency as far as I am concerned. The case law is clear that if there is a inefficiency on the part of the Defendant the default judgement should stand.

 

They should have served a defence and alleged the claim was not served correctly.

 

They have still not served a substantive defence other than the brief suggestion (1 paragraph) that I have 'misinterpreted' the law.

 

They have conveniently skipped over the fact that they also just ignored the pre-action letters.

 

They have not addressed the fact as to why it took them so long to apply for the judgement to be set aside.

[AndyOrch]

HI

 

That's why I asked whether this was a part 8 claim....in part 8 claim you are not expected to specify a claimed sum...and reading between the lines of the type of claim this is in connection with...perhaps you should have made a part 8 claim and not a part 7...which you must specify a claimed sum?

 

Andy

[totally_pennyless]

HI

 

That's why I asked in post #39 whether this was a part 8 claim....in part 8 claim you are not expected to specify a claimed sum...and reading between the lines of the type of claim this is in connection with...perhaps you should have made a part 8 claim and not a part 7...which you must specify a claimed sum?

 

Andy

 

Thanks Andy.

 

I used the standard N1 form which I understood to be the correct form?

 

Thanks Andy.

 

I used the standard N1 form which I understood to be the correct form?

 

As used here (this is a sample):

 

http://www.kingqueen.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/CounsellingCompletedN1.pdf

 

They are not arguing the service of the claim was invalid they are arguing they assumed it was invalid.

 

Are they not meant to be draft and serving a full defence here?

[legalistic]

totally-pennyless, how long has been allowed for the hearing. I seem to recall you previously said it was to be only 10 minutes. If that is the case and they are represented and you are not you will be lucky to get to open your mouth as judges prefer to address a lawyer especially when time is short. Generally speaking I would suggest you start thinking about what lawyers call "the merits" rather than focusing so much on procedure.

[totally_pennyless]

Hi legalistic,

 

I think the hearing is still listed for 10 minutes - the mind boggles.

 

I think the merits are very much in question here as the other side would need to show a reasonable prospect of successfully defending the claim.

 

Yep, still listed for 10 minutes.

 

It seems they waited for the very last possible second to make this application.

 

Would the court service even serve the claim on the Defendant in the service of the claim was not valid?

[legalistic]

If the Court Service has issued a claim it must serve it. The Court Service is required to be impartial as between the parties though a procedural judge can interfere. I'm wondering what use this default judgment is to you given that you did not claim any money What, actually, do you want out of your claim. If, at the hearing, your claim is set aside (which in my view is likely) then you will go back to square one. If they can show a restored claim has no chance of success the default judgment will be set aside and the restored claim struck out. I think you need to have at your fingertips, for the hearing, arguments to show you have a strong claim i.e. to knock down their arguments. Not easy I know especially at a short hearing. I don't know if they are the ones who asked for such a short hearing (rather than the court). Even if they didn't they are probably going for a quick kill. I see you have not asked for any help with the merits.

[totally_pennyless]

Legalistic, I think you may have accidentally skipped over post #44.

 

The correct form was used and when issuing a discrimination claim one does not need to specify an amount on the form N1 (the amount changes all the time).

 

On the application the other side asked for a hearing length of 2 hours. I am therefore surprised the Court has listed it for 10 minutes. I suspect that is because the Court did not want to abandon the hearing on Tuesday when taking into account their duties.

[legalistic]

totally-pennyless, I have not accidentally skipped over post #44 but you have told this forum nothing about your claim The fact is the merits are everything and procedure is secondary. That's probably the reason the opposing solicitors have apparently been slap-dash about procedure.That it's the court that only wanted 10 minutes could say anything ! But it is likely to have come from a/the judge.May I also suggest that you do not expect the judge to put your case for you. It's entirely down to you. We have an adversarial as opposed to an inquisitorial system which they have on the continent, though our judges are steadily getting more and more hands on.By the way I meant to say that the default judgment (not the claim) would likely be set aside. The judge may well do it whatever lies ahead.If the default judgment is set aside and the claim struck out you can appeal against this.