Who issues a claim- Court or claimant?

[ThedaBara]

Yes, quite a few... TB

[Guest]

Yes, quite a few... TB

like what. things have to be read as a whole.

come on, help the guys to help you rather than them asking.

it was asked what the claim and defence contents were, you didnt respond re.

[ThedaBara]

Sorry Ford... I missed that, but all has been posted on here before... it's been going on for ages. This is a claim against a neighbour who interfered with the sale of my house by making threats to the purchasers, causing the sale to collapse.

We were a long way into the conveyancing and about to exchange. I am bringing a case of tort of interference and malicious falsehood. I am not claiming the full loss £375k, but have asked for an unspecified amount in excess of £25k by way of compensation, to be decided by the court.

I am waaay out of my depth with this multitrack thing as it seems to be designed for those who are legally trained... I'm stuck at the first hurdle and can't even deal with the DQ! I have no idea how to do the electronic documents thing... there are emails between me and the Defendant's solicitor, emails and texts from the purchasers and the acting estate agent, detailing exactly what happened, emails between myself and the conveyancing solicitor and the police etc.. LOTs of emails involved!

Just wondering if I should ask the court to divert to a different track... the small claims is much simpler and easier for a LIP to understand...

 

TB

[Vauban]

Sorry Ford... I missed that, but all has been posted on here before... it's been going on for ages. This is a claim against a neighbour who interfered with the sale of my house by making threats to the purchasers, causing the sale to collapse.

We were a long way into the conveyancing and about to exchange. I am bringing a case of tort of interference and malicious falsehood. I am not claiming the full loss £375k, but have asked for an unspecified amount in excess of £25k by way of compensation, to be decided by the court.

I am waaay out of my depth with this multitrack thing as it seems to be designed for those who are legally trained... I'm stuck at the first hurdle and can't even deal with the DQ!

 

TB

 

I haven't read all of the posts in this thread, but just a word of caution about multitrack claims: unlike the small claims track, you are exposed to the other side's legal costs if you lose. So if they engage a lawyer and win, there's a good chance you'll be paying their fees.

 

I've no idea whether your neighbour's behaviour creates a claim for you in law, but I wouldn't imagine that it is straightforward. So if you're feeling out of your depth, I really would recommend getting proper legal help. And if you can't afford that, consider the merits of continuing down this track.

 

Small claims would be much safer - and LiPs tend to get an easier time, I understand. But I think the claim limit is £10k, which is less than half of your claim, so won't fly.

[steampowered]

I agree with Vauban's suggestion that you get proper legal advice and consider asking a solicitor to represent you.

 

If the defendant engages solicitors you will be paying their legal costs if you lose. Similarly, they will have to pay your legal costs if you win.

 

You cannot use the small claims track here as the amount is above 10k.

 

In the meantime, you can read the actual Practice Direction here: https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part31/pd_part31b. I think the key point is that, in multi-track, you are supposed to approach the other side in order to agree how you will search for electronic documents relevant to the case and how disclosure of electronic documents will work. You could complete the electronic documents questionnaire (N264) and send that to the other side if that helps. Alternatively, if the situation with electronic documents is simple, for example if it is simply a bunch of emails, you could contact the other side to try and agree that in terms of electronic disclosure you will hand over all email correspondence you had with the defendant, the solicitor and any other relevant parties.

 

The key point to understand is that you are (in basic terms) required to disclose everything relevant to the case. That will include the emails you want to disclose. It will also include disclosing any other emails which could be relevant and includes everything which could be damaging to your case. You need to disclose everything, not just the documents you want to use. It would probably be easiest if you just hand over everything which relates in any way to the transaction - except for potentially emails with your own solicitor as you may not be required to disclose these if they are privileged (although you could still disclose them if you wanted to do so).

[ThedaBara]

Exactly! I absolutely don't have a penny... not for legal advice and certainly not for the other side's costs, as he is represented by an expensive lawyer... There is too much to go into here, but the neighbours has lied, cheated, threatened and bribed... he has inetrfered with my witnesses, causing them to withdraw, too... there is nothing this wealthy and influential person will not stoop to... I must admit that I don't feel very confident of getting anywhere with the court... but the injustice and the way I've been treated by this person is eating away at me... he was cautioned by the police for criminal damage to my property and in this small town the police are in cahoots with him as he can pull a lot of strings...he pays them off, most definitely. I have tried, without success to get disclosure from the police who are fully aware of the circumstances... I wouldn't even have started this claim had it not been that he bribed an estate agent to reveal the sealed bids for the land, of which mine was the highest, in order to gazzump me on the land. It's a nightmare!

TB

[ThedaBara]

SteamPowered... many thanks! It's £25k for small track, then? I have to fill in the DQ and there's a question asking if you wish to change tracks... it would go a long way to putting my mind at rest, knowing I wouldn't be chased for tens of thousands of pounds if I lost... My economic loss is £375k... I was going to pay off the huge (£250k) mortgage which runs out in 6 months, plus all the other creditors... the house has deteriorated due to a leaky roof and so I won't get an offer like that now... The defendant has ruined my retirement. But £25k would be better than nothing... and I have only asked the court for compensation in excess of £25k, so not much difference... TB

[ThedaBara]

Is there a sticky on filling in a DQ on here, please? TB

[Vauban]

"It's £25k for small track, then?"

 

No, the limit for small claims is £10,000, as I wrote in my post above. So if your claim exceeds this, you are going to be exposed to the other side’s legal costs if you lose. Indeed, having started a legal claim you are potentially already liable for their legal costs, even if you discontinue.

 

You will need to explain how you account for losses of £25k. Your economic loss cannot by £375k, if you still own the house. And if you had a mortgage, then the house wasn’t yours in any case. You are still at liberty to resell it. Even if you can demonstrate that the defendant has caused you a loss, you need to be really clear about how much they have actually cost you – bearing in mind you could sell the house subsequently to an alternative buyer. So how much did you really lose by the sale falling through on this one occasion?

 

Unless you can substantiate them with clear evidence (perhaps you can), then making allegations about police corruption or an estate agent taking bribes are not only irrelevant to your claim but also risk damaging your credibility. So keep to the facts that you can demonstrate as true.

 

But my basic point remains that, if you are not able to complete a Directions Questionnaire, then you are definitely going to struggle to manage the rest of this case yourself, despite the help of good people here. Without getting paid legal help or discontinuing the claim, you are risking losing a lot of money indeed if you are on the multi-track. Are you sure your actual losses are not less than £10k, which would allow you to proceed on the small claims track? (I’m still not certain you would have a case, but at least the risks of paying the other side’s legal fees will be minimal.)

[steampowered]

SteamPowered... many thanks! It's £25k for small track, then? I have to fill in the DQ and there's a question asking if you wish to change tracks... it would go a long way to putting my mind at rest, knowing I wouldn't be chased for tens of thousands of pounds if I lost... My economic loss is £375k... I was going to pay off the huge (£250k) mortgage which runs out in 6 months, plus all the other creditors... the house has deteriorated due to a leaky roof and so I won't get an offer like that now... The defendant has ruined my retirement. But £25k would be better than nothing... and I have only asked the court for compensation in excess of £25k, so not much difference... TB

No, small claims is 10k. The reference to 25k was a typo on my part. Fast track is the normal track for claims up to 25k. Given the amounts you are looking at sounds like this is a multi track claim to me.

 

I don't really understand the full details of what your claim is about or how your economic loss is 375k to be honest although if you require further suggestions/input on this you are welcome to provide further details.

[Guest]

Sorry Ford... I missed that, but all has been posted on here before... it's been going on for ages. This is a claim against a neighbour who interfered with the sale of my house by making threats to the purchasers, causing the sale to collapse.

We were a long way into the conveyancing and about to exchange. I am bringing a case of tort of interference and malicious falsehood. I am not claiming the full loss £375k, but have asked for an unspecified amount in excess of £25k by way of compensation, to be decided by the court.

I am waaay out of my depth with this multitrack thing as it seems to be designed for those who are legally trained... I'm stuck at the first hurdle and can't even deal with the DQ! I have no idea how to do the electronic documents thing... there are emails between me and the Defendant's solicitor, emails and texts from the purchasers and the acting estate agent, detailing exactly what happened, emails between myself and the conveyancing solicitor and the police etc.. LOTs of emails involved!

Just wondering if I should ask the court to divert to a different track... the small claims is much simpler and easier for a LIP to understand...

 

TB

tricky claim then.

 

at least you have enlightened the thread a bit re the claim. as i said, everything needs to be considered together so that more particular advice can be given in the circumstances. as you have now seen.

 

if s3 defamation act doesnt apply, then you'll have to plead and prove any special damages (financial loss) re mal falsehood.

not sure about 'interference'. if you hadnt exchanged contracts, then how did they cause a contract to be broken? unless there is a way re a potential contract. or there is another interference you are thinking of.

(just thinking in cf., for everyone to opine on, and correct if am wide. )

[ThedaBara]

"It's £25k for small track, then?"

 

No, the limit for small claims is £10,000, as I wrote in my post above. So if your claim exceeds this, you are going to be exposed to the other side’s legal costs if you lose. Indeed, having started a legal claim you are potentially already liable for their legal costs, even if you discontinue.

 

You will need to explain how you account for losses of £25k. Your economic loss cannot by £375k, if you still own the house. And if you had a mortgage, then the house wasn’t yours in any case. You are still at liberty to resell it. Even if you can demonstrate that the defendant has caused you a loss, you need to be really clear about how much they have actually cost you – bearing in mind you could sell the house subsequently to an alternative buyer. So how much did you really lose by the sale falling through on this one occasion?

 

Unless you can substantiate them with clear evidence (perhaps you can), then making allegations about police corruption or an estate agent taking bribes are not only irrelevant to your claim but also risk damaging your credibility. So keep to the facts that you can demonstrate as true.

 

But my basic point remains that, if you are not able to complete a Directions Questionnaire, then you are definitely going to struggle to manage the rest of this case yourself, despite the help of good people here. Without getting paid legal help or discontinuing the claim, you are risking losing a lot of money indeed if you are on the multi-track. Are you sure your actual losses are not less than £10k, which would allow you to proceed on the small claims track? (I’m still not certain you would have a case, but at least the risks of paying the other side’s legal fees will be minimal.)

 

Thank you very much... I agree, I will struggle... I just don't grasp any of it. Firstly, you say I'm already liable and if that's the case, I have only received a defence from them so far... so that's not going to be too expensive atm.

I am not including any police corruption or bribery... but I do have two emails from the estate agent... the first telling me xactly why the purchasers withdrew and also promising to help me by providing evidence... then a little while later an email stating that he is too embarrassed to help because he plays golf at the same club as the defendant... would I need to provide those emails as electronic disclosure?

The amount I lost by the defendant's actions is around £120k, once the mortgage and agent fees are paid... But my claim was for an unspecified amount in excess of £25k, to be decided by the court by way of compensation for my loss. The thing is, the purchasers, cash buyers, offered far more than the house was worth because they wanted to live in this specific road... I'll never get a similar offer again as the property is falling apart and in close to negative equity. TB

[ThedaBara]

Hi... yes, very tricky! I believe Tort of Interference relates to a 3rd party preventing the other parties from entering into a contract...

It's very early and my brain is not fully in gear...but what does that last bit in brackets mean, please? TB

[ThedaBara]

Steampowered... Perhaps I should ask the court to switch to the fast track, as the claim is for an unspecified amount to be decided by the court ...

TB

[ThedaBara]

Found this on Wiki;

 

Case law[edit]

An early, perhaps the earliest, instance of recognition of this tort occurred in Garret v Taylor, 79 Eng. Rep. 485 (K.B. 1620). In that case, the defendant drove customers away from the plaintiff’s quarry by threatening them with mayhem and also threatening to “vex [them] with suits.” The King's Bench court said that “the defendant threatened violence to the extent of committing an assault upon ... customers of the plaintiff ... whereupon ‘they all desisted from buying.’’ The court therefore upheld a judgment for the plaintiff.

In a similar case, Tarleton v McGawley, 170 Eng. Rep. 153 (K.B. 1793), the defendant shot from its ship Othello off the coast of Africa upon natives while “contriving and maliciously intending to hinder and deter the natives from trading with” plaintiff’s rival trading ship Bannister. This action caused the natives (plaintiff’s prospective customers) to flee the scene, depriving the plaintiff of their potential business. The King's Bench court held the conduct actionable. The defendant claimed, by way of justification, that the local native ruler had given it an exclusive franchise to trade with his subjects, but the court rejected this defense.

The tort was described in the case of Keeble v Hickeringill, (1707) 103 Eng. Rep. 1127, styled as a "trespass on the case". In that case, the defendant had used a shotgun to drive ducks away from a pond that the plaintiff had built for the purpose of capturing ducks. Thus, unlike the foregoing cases, here the actionable conduct was not directly driving the prospective customers away, but rather eliminating the subject matter of the prospective business. Although the ducks had not yet been captured, the Justice Holt wrote for the court that "where a violent or malicious act is done to a man's occupation, profession, or way of getting a livelihood, there an action lies in all cases." The court noted that the defendant would have the right to draw away ducks to a pond of his own, raising as a comparison a 1410 case in which the court deemed that no cause of action would lie where a schoolmaster opened a new school that drew students away from an old school.

The application of the above has since been modified in UK law. In OBG v Allan et al. 2008 1AC 1

Wrongful interference: the unified theory which treated causing loss by unlawful means as an extension of the tort of inducing a breach of contract was abandoned; inducing breach of contract and causing loss by unlawful means were two separate torts. inducing a breach of contract was a tort of accessory liability, and an intention to cause a breach of contract was a necessary and sufficient requirement for liability; a person had to know that he was inducing a breach of contract and to intend to do; that a conscious decision not to inquire into the existence of a fact could be treated as knowledge for the purposes of the tort; that a person who knowingly induced a breach of contract as a means to an end had the necessary intent even if he was not motivated by malice but had acted with the motive of securing an economic advantage for himself; that, however, a breach of contract which was neither an end in itself nor a means to an end but was merely a foreseeable consequence of a person’s acts did not give rise to liability; and that there could be no secondary liability without primary liability, and therefore a person could not be liable for inducing a breach of contract unless there had in fact been a breach by the contracting party.

Causing loss by unlawful means: acts against a third party counted as unlawful means only if they were actionable by that third party if he had suffered loss; that unlawful means consisted of acts intended to cause loss to the claimant by interfering with the freedom of a third party in a way which was unlawful as against that third party and which was intended to cause loss to the claimant, but did not include acts which might be unlawful against a third party but which did not affect his freedom to deal with the claimant. Strict liability for conversion applied only to an interest in chattels and not to chooses in action; this was too radical to impose liability for pure economic loss on receivers who had been appointed and had acted in good faith. This also left open the position where they breached the duty of good faith.

 

 

TB

[ThedaBara]

This is relevant... the actions of the Defendant were intentional as he threatened the purchasers, saying if they didn't buy the land adjoining my property (for an extemely extortionate sum), he would pursue them in the courts for damage caused to his land by my septic tank, which he said was leaking (a malicious falsehood)...

 

Causing loss by unlawful means: acts against a third party counted as unlawful means only if they were actionable by that third party if he had suffered loss; that unlawful means consisted of acts intended to cause loss to the claimant by interfering with the freedom of a third party in a way which was unlawful as against that third party and which was intended to cause loss to the claimant...

 

The problem I have is proving it, as he denies it all and my witnesses are reluctant to privide evidence.

 

TB

[Guest]

r...but what does that last bit in brackets mean, please? TB

not much, just saying was thinking aloud, and anyone correct if its wrong.

 

i was thinking of interference with contract re breaking a contract, but also posed whether there was another type/branch of interference that cld be applicable.

[Vauban]

This is relevant... the actions of the Defendant were intentional as he threatened the purchasers, saying if they didn't buy the land adjoining my property (for an extemely extortionate sum), he would pursue them in the courts for damage caused to his land by my septic tank, which he said was leaking (a malicious falsehood)...

 

Causing loss by unlawful means: acts against a third party counted as unlawful means only if they were actionable by that third party if he had suffered loss; that unlawful means consisted of acts intended to cause loss to the claimant by interfering with the freedom of a third party in a way which was unlawful as against that third party and which was intended to cause loss to the claimant...

 

The problem I have is proving it, as he denies it all and my witnesses are reluctant to privide evidence.

 

TB

 

I think this is all very difficult, and can only reiterate the need for legal advice. Having a neighbour aggressively proposition a potential buyer with stories of leaking septic tanks may not come even close legally to the notion of frustrating a contract through unlawful means - I really have no idea, and there will be very few people on here who could give you a clear view.

 

You could post up your particulars of claim and the defence received and maybe those of a more legal bent can give you a quick steer?

[ThedaBara]

Thanks guys... I really think this is outside the scope of a LIP...

There can be no justice until those who are involved in litigation have access to a professional lawyer, whether they are wealthy enough to afford it or not... The law is extremely prejudiced against those who can't afford representation;

 

The European Court of Human Rights in Bulut v Austria[3] defined the concept as “that both in criminal and non-criminal cases ‘everyone who is a party to such proceedings shall have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case to the court under conditions which do not place him at substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his opponent.”

 

I really do believe I have a case but I just don't know how to navigate the complex CPR.

 

D45

[ThedaBara]

not much, just saying was thinking aloud, and anyone correct if its wrong.

 

i was thinking of interference with contract re breaking a contract, but also posed whether there was another type/branch of interference that cld be applicable.

 

Wrongful or unlawful? The wording is probably important in this case... but he did threaten the purchasers. I think that is unlawful... D45

 

"A tort of uncertain ambit which consists in one person using unlawful means with the object and effect of causing damage to another."

In Posluns v. Toronto Stock Exchange, Justice Gale of the Ontario High Court of Justice wrote:

"(W)hile some of the judgments are not susceptible of easy interpretation, perhaps because in many instances they were so elaborate, and others give the appearance of irreconcilability, there can be no doubt that our law recognizes as tortious any unjustifiable and unlawful violation of economic interests which causes harm."

More recently (1998), Justice Cumming of the Ontario Supreme Court used these words in 671122 Ontario Ltd. v Sagaz, at ¶61:

"(T)here is a tort in the Canadian common law which I shall call the tort of unlawful interference with economic relations. The elements of the tort of unlawful interference with economic relations are: (1) the existence of a valid business relationship or business expectancy between the plaintiff and another party; (2) knowledge by the defendant of that business relationship or expectancy; (3) intentional interference which induces or causes a termination of the business relationship or expectancy; (4) the interference is by way of unlawful means; (5) the interference by the defendant must be the proximate cause of the termination of the business relationship or expectancy; and (6) there is a resultant loss to the plaintiff."

As to what mightg be understod by unlawful means, note these words of Justice Denning in Torquay Hotel:

"I must say a word about unlawful means, because that brings in another principle. I have always understood that if one person deliberately interferes with the trade or business of another, and does so by unlawful means, that is, by an act which he is not at liberty to commit, then he is acting unlawfully, even though he does not procure or induce any actual breach of contract. If the means are unlawful, that is enough."

REFERENCES:

▪ 671122 Ontario Ltd. v. Sagaz Industries Canada Inc., 40 OR (3d) 229 (1998)

▪ Custom Cycle (1996) Ltd. v. Honda Canada Inc., 2009 SKQB 427

▪ Duke v. Puts, 2004 SKCA 12

▪ Jones, M. A., editor, Clerk & Lindsell on Torts, 20th Ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2010), at page 1656

▪ OBG Ltd. v. Allan, [2007] UKHL 21

▪ Posluns v. Toronto Stock Exchange, 46 D.L.R. (2d) 210 (1964)

▪ Torquay Hotel Co. Ltd. v. Cousins, [1969] 1 All E.R. 522

[Guest]

Wrongful or unlawful? ...

i meant correct my post if (my post) is wrong

[ThedaBara]

Ford... I was just thinking aloud there... wondering about the wording and whether it makes much difference in this case.

 

TB

[ThedaBara]

I would appreciate it if anyone could point me in the direction of DQ info as to completing the form, (in particular D3 D4 and part K), please. TB

[AndyOrch]

Post #75 here if its the N181...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?439308-Redwood-harwoods-school-fees.-Claimforn-received/page4

 

Andy

[ThedaBara]

Thanks Andy... very helpful! TB