CCJ Registering from England

[seriously fed up]

That is all good advice from Exel, in particular the possibility of taking this to a higher level in the company, as it might be that level may be unaware of what is going on. There is a clear possibility that this is "personal" (havent been on the wrong end of this myself - but I do know one guy in particular who was) -ie not corporate persecution exel, but an individual (or individuals) misusing their position and getting away with it. So definitely worth a try.

My own view on this is still driven by "this shouldnt be happening". This case should not even have been listed. But the issue is what to do about it. Couple of suggestions

 

1. raise it at different levels - like I said your local candidates. It might not be who/ what they know, but someone they know who can help. I suspect that this whole thing could be brought to an end if the right word was put in the ear of the right person. One person who occurred to me who might know is Ian Hamilton QC. You might not have heard of him, but he was one of the students who repatriated the Stone of Destiny from Westminster Abbey about 60 years ago, so his credentials as a nationalist who would want to defend the rights of Scottish law are strong (you dont actually need to be a nationalist - any Scottish lawyer gets annoyed when England tries to usurp their jurisdiction - even an arch unionist like Donald Findlay). He's getting on a bit now, but in his own way quite active - in other words, I dont think he could do anything but you might think about getting in touch with him for advice on who might be able to help. The way to get to him is go to his blog - Ian Hamilton QC - click on subscribe, and then click on the email address and tell him about the situation you are in. The worst that will happen is he will ignore you, but he might be prepared to advise. Worth a try. The other person I thought about was Kenneth Roy, who has been a campaigning journalist for more years than i can remember. His main output is via an online publication called the Scottish Review - you can get contact details here - Scottish Review : Office. He might pick it up himself if it interests him - or he might advise someone else. Again the worst that would happen is a rubber ear.
   
2. I would regard appearing at Barnsley as the final option. Why? Because in a sense if they put you to the trouble and expense of going there then in a sense they cannot lose - its hard to imagine they would get their court order, but you never know. But they would have you out of pocket and inconvenienced. If I am right about this being personal - and not corporate - persecution, then they have won. What is to stop them bringing the case in Plymouth next time? IF it comes to it then yes you obviously must defend yourself in Barnsley, but I think right now - with six weeks to go - we should be looking for someone to put a big full stop on this so that not only is Barnsley stopped but the whole thing is brought to an end. Yes by all means make arrangements to defend in Barnsley, but lets not lose sight of the bigger picture - oh, and ideally with compensation for the inconvenience they have put you to already.
   

[seriously fed up]

Got some advice re CPR rules (English procedure on bringing claims in court). A relevant section is in Part 6, which allows claimants to bring claims without court (English) permission. It reads (and you can find it here - PART 6 - SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS - Ministry of Justice at para 6.32

 

"Service of the claim form where the permission of the court is not required – Scotland and Northern Ireland 6.32

 

(1) The claimant may serve the claim form on a defendant in Scotland or Northern Ireland where each claim made against the defendant to be served and included in the claim form is a claim which the court has power to determine under the 1982 Act and –

(a) no proceedings between the parties concerning the same claim are pending in the courts of any other part of the United Kingdom; and

 

(b)

(i) the defendant is domiciled in the United Kingdom;

 

(ii) the proceedings are within paragraph 11 of Schedule 4 to the 1982 Act; or

 

(iii) the defendant is a party to an agreement conferring jurisdiction, within paragraph 12 of Schedule 4 to the 1982 Act.

 

 

 

(2) The claimant may serve the claim form on a defendant in Scotland or Northern Ireland where each claim made against the defendant to be served and included in the claim form is a claim which the court has power to determine under any enactment other than the 1982 Act notwithstanding that –

(a) the person against whom the claim is made is not within the jurisdiction; or

 

(b) the facts giving rise to the claim did not occur within the jurisdiction"

I have highlighted the key part - the Barnsley court quite specifically does not have the power to hear the case - your employer (ex employer) can only sue you where you are domiciled. They may object here that you are not their employee (any more), but it would seem to me that this wouldnt stand up as their claim against you concerns payments made under a contract of employment and the relevant section of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgements Act is headed "Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment". See schedule 11 of Civil etc Act 1982 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1982/cukpga_19820027_en_22#sch11

 

CPR goes on under Part 11 to say

"Procedure for disputing the court’s jurisdiction

11 (1) A defendant who wishes to –

(a) dispute the court’s jurisdiction to try the claim; or

 

(b) argue that the court should not exercise its jurisdiction

 

may apply to the court for an order declaring that it has no such jurisdiction or should not exercise any jurisdiction which it may have.

 

(2) A defendant who wishes to make such an application must first file an acknowledgment of service in accordance with Part 10.

 

(3) A defendant who files an acknowledgment of service does not, by doing so, lose any right that he may have to dispute the court’s jurisdiction.

 

(4) An application under this rule must –

(a) be made within 14 days after filing an acknowledgment of service; and

 

(b) be supported by evidence.

 

 

(5) If the defendant –

(a) files an acknowledgment of service; and

 

(b) does not make such an application within the period specified in paragraph (4),

 

he is to be treated as having accepted that the court has jurisdiction to try the claim.

 

(6) An order containing a declaration that the court has no jurisdiction or will not exercise its jurisdiction may also make further provision including –

(a) setting aside the claim form;

 

(b) setting aside service of the claim form;

 

© discharging any order made before the claim was commenced or before the claim form was served; and

 

(d) staying(GL) the proceedings.

 

 

(7) If on an application under this rule the court does not make a declaration –

(a) the acknowledgment of service shall cease to have effect;

 

(b) the defendant may file a further acknowledgment of service within 14 days or such other period as the court may direct; and

 

© the court shall give directions as to the filing and service of the defence in a claim under Part 7 or the filing of evidence in a claim under Part 8 in the event that a further acknowledgment of service is filed.

 

 

(8) If the defendant files a further acknowledgment of service in accordance with paragraph (7)(b) he shall be treated as having accepted that the court has jurisdiction to try the claim.

 

(9) If a defendant makes an application under this rule, he must file and serve his written evidence in support with the application notice, but he need not before the hearing of the application file –

(a) in a Part 7 claim, a defence; or

 

(b) in a Part 8 claim, any other written evidence.

 

 

(10) Omitted"

So from this the key things are

 

• have you put in an acknowledgement of service yet?
  
• if so have 14 days gone by since that acknowledgement was made (please say no)?
  
• if less than 14 days see 1 and 2 above. I would have thought your evidence would be the relevant sections of the Civil Jurisdication and Judgements Act + evidence of where you are currently living (and perhaps - belt and braces - where you have resided since leaving their employment).
  

I really cant see any reason why that wouldnt work. It seems quite clear from what you have said that their claim depends on your original contract of employment and thus Schedule 11, part 4 - Jurisdiction over contracts of employment - would apply at rule 3 that "An employer may bring proceedings only in the courts for the place in which the employee is domiciled." Added to evidence of where you are domiciled, I dont see how anyone could disagree with this, unless you had given up your jurisdictional rights since this dispute began (the 82 Act is clear on this - you have to have agreed since the dispute began so a term in the contract you signed when you took up employment with them, wouldnt have any force as it was signed before the dispute began).