Case Management confusion

[worriedfromwelwyn]

I have a few queries that I hope people can help with

 

1) Can a party ask for Additional Information - if a Claim has not yet been allocated to a Track.

Can a Court allow Additional Information - if claim not allocated?

 

2) If other case management issues are held the same time as a Strike Out application wouldn't that prejudice the Strike Out?

 

3) How long after the Directions Questionnaire should Allocation take place?

 

4) In Discrimination cases are Assessors needed for a Strike Out - as this could be Final Hearing.

 

Thanks.

[steampowered]

Hi and welcome to CAG.

 

1) Can a party ask for Additional Information - if a Claim has not yet been allocated to a Track.

Can a Court allow Additional Information - if claim not allocated?

Only in unusual circumstances. There is a disclosure stage in the court process which allows for the exchange of information. Disclosure comes after allocation.

 

2) If other case management issues are held the same time as a Strike Out application wouldn't that prejudice the Strike Out?

No. The court would simply decide on the strike-out. If that is successful, that is the end of the matter. If it isn't successful, the judge would go on to consider the other requests. The court isn't going to start ordering multiple case management conferences if there is no good reason.

 

3) How long after the Directions Questionnaire should Allocation take place?

Not too long.

 

4) In Discrimination cases are Assessors needed for a Strike Out - as this could be Final Hearing.

You'll need to provide a few details about your case if you want to receive a sensible answer to this one. However I suspect the answer is going to be no, if your case is struck out the court would essentially be saying your claim is hopeless so can be dismissed at an early stage without the need for a full hearing. You don't typically get any factual evidence heard at the strike-out stage.

[worriedfromwelwyn]

^ On assessors,

s114 of the Equality Act say they are needed for proceedings - not necessarily just a Final Hearing.

In fact I was thinking if the Defendant's case was struck out - not mine in a Strike Out Hearing.

 

On Additional Information, that's pretty much what I thought.

 

The Dilemma I have is that I called for a Strike Out.

The Defendant then called for Additional Information (they were given heaps + Court didn't ask for any further clarification).

 

 

I refused - and because it wasn't tracked to Fast or Multi Track, felt I could.

 

The Defence also called for Tracking to a Multi Track.

 

 

If Court decided to go for Multi Track would I be liable for costs

- even though at the time of request for Additional Information and my Strike Out application, it wasn't multi track.

[steampowered]

I am not an expert on discrimination litigation in the courts, but I would have thought an assessor would be unlikely to be appointed at the strike-out stage. Presumably directions relating to the appointment of an assessor would be given at the CMC, along with the other directions setting out how the case is to proceed towards trial. If the case is seen as hopeless and therefore struck out I would think that should satisfy the 'unless the judge is satisfied that there are good reasons for not doing so' condition set out in s114 of the Equality Act.

 

You will need to give a bit more info as to exactly what the Defendant was asking for, and how exactly they asked for it, to receive sensible input on the information point. In very general terms I would have thought you are perfectly entitled to refuse to provide heaps of additional information until you reach disclosure.

 

Yes, you can be liable for costs if your application is unsuccessful even though the case has not yet been formally allocated. The costs rules of the relevant track would still typically be applied before allocation. The 'winner pays the loser's costs' principle applies in both fast track and multi track. Of course it sounds like there are other matters to be decided at the CMC so you could I suppose ask for 'costs in the case'.

[worriedfromwelwyn]

" The costs rules of the relevant track would still typically be applied before allocation. The costs rules of the relevant track would still typically be applied before allocation. "

 

If the case was provisionally awarded Small Track - wouldn't it be fair to assume rules relating to Small Claims for costs - unless and until it was officially tracked to fast or multi.

[steampowered]

If the case was provisionally awarded Small Track - wouldn't it be fair to assume rules relating to small claimsicon for costs - unless and until it was officially tracked to fast or multi.

Probably, but that's not a total guarantee.

 

Why has one side asked for multi-track if the case was provisionally allocated to small claims? Quite a difference between the 10k limit for small claims and the 25k starting point for multi track.

[worriedfromwelwyn]

1)For a Civil Consent Order, does it have to be signed by a solicitor?

 

2)Is is legal if signed by a barrister? If a party didn't receive legal advice - does this make it illegal?

 

3) Are the "recitals" enforceable, or just the actual order by consent?

[steampowered]

1) No, a consent order is issued by the court rather than by the parties or a solicitors.

2) No, a consent order is legally binding regardless of whether you got legal advice or not.

3) The recitals are not part of the actual order and shouldn't be setting out actual legal obligations.

[dx100uk]

I've merged your threads

best to keep to one please

[worriedfromwelwyn]

I've come across this,http://www.wikivorce.com/divorce/Consent-Orders.html it's about consent orders for separating couples, rather than more general civil disputes. However, it says (section 10) that it has to be drawn up by a solicitor and legal advice needs to be taken.

 

In civil disputes you're expected to settle. If I'm offered damages and don't settle - because I want the other side found "liable" - would this come against me in awarding damages?

 

The other side are agreeing to pay a settlement, but "without admission of liability". Should I view this like someone pleading "not guilty" but still being punished, in that they are paying out?

 

I've also come across this which is persuasive about settling http://piperhoffman.com/2010/08/09/the-top-ten-myths-and-facts-about-suing-your-employer-for-discrimination/

Edited September 21, 2016 by worriedfromwelwyn

[BazzaS]

I've come across this, it's about consent orders for separating couples, rather than more general civil disputes. However, it says (section 10) that it has to be drawn up by a solicitor and legal advice needs to be taken.

 

In civil disputes you're expected to settle. If I'm offered damages and don't settle - because I want the other side found "liable" - would this come against me in awarding damages?

 

The other side are agreeing to pay a settlement, but "without admission of liability". Should I view this like someone pleading "not guilty" but still being punished, in that they are paying out?

 

I've also come across this which is persuasive about settling http://piperhoffman.com/2010/08/09/the-top-ten-myths-and-facts-about-suing-your-employer-for-discrimination/

 

"In civil disputes you're expected to settle. If I'm offered damages and don't settle - because I want the other side found "liable" - would this come against me in awarding damages?"

 

In civil disputes you are expected to behave reasonably : that is not unreasonably refuse e.g. Mediation.

If made an offer by the other side on a "Part 36" or "without prejudice save as to costs" basis you don't have to accept it, but there are costs. consequences of not accepting it if you later fail to beat that offfer at trial.

 

That PiperHoffman link talks a lot of sense (although it is focused on employment law in the USA, not England & Wales).

 

Should you accept an offer that comes with "this is not an admission of liability" : you need to take advice in the implications.

Would you be looking towards any further action based on an admission of liability?

How important to you is it that they admit liability, or do you just want things "done & dusted, and 'put behind you'"?

[dx100uk]

bottom site is American...

 

 

dx

[Ganymede]

I've come across this,http://www.wikivorce.com/divorce/Consent-Orders.html it's about consent orders for separating couples, rather than more general civil disputes. However, it says (section 10) that it has to be drawn up by a solicitor and legal advice needs to be taken.

 

In civil disputes you're expected to settle. If I'm offered damages and don't settle - because I want the other side found "liable" - would this come against me in awarding damages?

 

The other side are agreeing to pay a settlement, but "without admission of liability". Should I view this like someone pleading "not guilty" but still being punished, in that they are paying out?

 

I've also come across this which is persuasive about settling http://piperhoffman.com/2010/08/09/the-top-ten-myths-and-facts-about-suing-your-employer-for-discrimination/

 

What is this claim all about?

[steampowered]

I've come across this,http://www.wikivorce.com/divorce/Consent-Orders.html it's about consent orders for separating couples, rather than more general civil disputes. However, it says (section 10) that it has to be drawn up by a solicitor and legal advice needs to be taken.

It suggests that judge will look into this in a divorce case before approving the consent order. This wouldn't affect the validity of the order after its been given though. There isn't a general rule that the parties must receive legal advice before a consent order is issued in general civil cases.

 

In civil disputes you're expected to settle. If I'm offered damages and don't settle - because I want the other side found "liable" - would this come against me in awarding damages?

Absolutely. If you are awarded less or close to what the sellers offered to settle for, the sellers would have a strong basis for saying that you should pay their legal costs.

 

The other side are agreeing to pay a settlement, but "without admission of liability". Should I view this like someone pleading "not guilty" but still being punished, in that they are paying out?

It is common for settlements to be on a 'without admission of liability' basis.

[worriedfromwelwyn]

Gannymede - it's a discrimination case against a 'service provider'

 

Dx - I know that site is American but the general advice would be applicable here...

 

BazzaS + Steampowered - I think I will accept the offer. If it goes to a Hearing and I win I might not get much - and even pay their costs for refusing to settle. Plus it would be very stressful.

 

I guess I'll have to accept "no admission of liability". Even if there was an admission of liability - or a court found they were - nobody would lose their job over it. I'll take the money and move on. I've actually won, anyway.

[BazzaS]

BazzaS + Steampowered - I think I will accept the offer. If it goes to a Hearing and I win I might not get much - and even pay their costs for refusing to settle. Plus it would be very stressful.

 

I guess I'll have to accept "no admission of liability". Even if there was an admission of liability - or a court found they were - nobody would lose their job over it. I'll take the money and move on. I've actually won, anyway.

 

Knowing when to accept their settlement offer, taking what you feel you can realistically achieve, is wise. The option is "battling on" ; fine if you feel it may give you something you need, but it comes with stress & risk, and if you feel that extra risk isn't likely to give you anything extra .....

[worriedfromwelwyn]

Just one last query...

 

In a Consent By Order from the Court, how long will the Court keep a record of this - indefinatley?