Court proceedings for previous company car contract as guarantor

[The Mould]

rh999

 

You say that you have not yet filed a Defence against this claim.....so

after acknowledgement of service of the claim, were the AQ's served before you filed a Defence?

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

[The Mould]

With regards to my above post; meant to say "before you had the opportunity to file a Defence?"

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

[Guest]

... it was over 300 pages long, .....?

 

300 pages!

[Ganymede]

300 pages!

 

 

I thought that. The DJ is going to love it!

[The Mould]

:-)Don't panic folks; rh999s' WS is not 300 pages long.

 

rh999, can you please tell me what happened after you acknowledged service of the claim. Based upon what you have said regarding no Defence filed as yet, it may be the case that the Courts' staff made an error in the processing of the claim and sent out the Allocation Questionnaires prematurely. If this is indeed the case, then we will require to draft the same into your skeleton argument as the matter may give rise to issues in relation to the ECHR art.6 right of access to the Court and your entitlement to be given the opportunity to Defend.

 

Let me know as soon as you can please.

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

[rh999]

Hi all

as the mould stated my WS is not 300 pages. it is 7 pages, but backed up with evidence.

 

Hi The mould,

apologies I have been at work all day so not had a chance to get and look. with regards to your question, here follows order of events and my responses to them at time

February - received court claim i replied stating i intended to defend.

march - transferred to my local court, and AQ's sent out. both parties responded stating they would look as per section A of the AQ. 1 month stay was granted

April - as i have previously stated on this thread, i didn't want the pressure of going on this so i made an offer of around 40-50%, they rejected it saying least they could accept was about 90% despite me saying i had lost around £10k in earnings due to the termination.

i didn't hear anything again except for court order in May stating trial would commence in October. i had been working away and I cam back 2 weeks ago and called the court, and they informed me that the claimant had put a request for summary judgement. i asked for copies which they sent last week.

so in answer to your question, I have been unable to file defence as I have not had a chance due to the other events in this matter.

 

you mentione I may need a skeleton argument. should i do on that responds to each of the claimants point in their WS - point by point responses?

[The Mould]

Hi all

as the mould stated my WS is not 300 pages. it is 7 pages, but backed up with evidence.

 

Hi The mould,

apologies I have been at work all day so not had a chance to get and look. with regards to your question, here follows order of events and my responses to them at time

February - received court claim i replied stating i intended to defend.

march - transferred to my local court, and AQ's sent out. both parties responded stating they would look as per section A of the AQ. 1 month stay was granted

April - as i have previously stated on this thread, i didn't want the pressure of going on this so i made an offer of around 40-50%, they rejected it saying least they could accept was about 90% despite me saying i had lost around £10k in earnings due to the termination.

i didn't hear anything again except for court order in May stating trial would commence in October. i had been working away and I cam back 2 weeks ago and called the court, and they informed me that the claimant had put a request for summary judgement. i asked for copies which they sent last week.

so in answer to your question, I have been unable to file defence as I have not had a chance due to the other events in this matter.

 

you mentione I may need a skeleton argument. should i do on that responds to each of the claimants point in their WS - point by point responses?

 

Thank you for the above rh999.

 

I am just drafting a skeleton for you now, should be finished by 10 - 10:30 pm tonight. Will post it up for you then, you then amend/add the dates etc to suit your case.

 

Be back in a short while then

 

Godzilla

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

[rh999]

ok thanks The mould.

[The Mould]

ok thanks The mould.

 

 

Here is the DRAFT SKELETON ARGUMENT for you rh999 - amend/delete whatever you need to do:

 

DRAFT EXAMPLE ONLY - SKELETON ARGUMENT

InThe (name of Court) ClaimNo. (right hand side)

(left hand side)

Between:

(Claimants’name) Claimant

-and-

(Defendants’name) Defendant

1stSKELETON ARGUMENT OF THE DEFENDANT FOR THE HEARING ON 15TH AUGUST2012 OF THE CLAIMANTS’ APPLICATION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Note: (rh999, double spacing between paragraphs)

1. ForThe Purpose of The Defendants’ 1st Skeleton Argument:

a) TheDefendant is referred to herein by his first name (state your first name; i.e.John);

b) “theClaimant” shall mean ( state business name-Joe Public & Sons Leasing Ltd, example);

c) “theCompany” shall mean ( business name of your company);

d) “thecontract” shall mean the Lease Hire Agreement entered into by the Claimant& the Company on the (state the date);

e) “thevehicle” shall mean (full description of the Hire vehicle) to whichthe contract relates;

f) “theguarantee” shall mean the Guarantee Agreement bound to the contract signed by “John”as the Director of the company on (state the date);

g) “therecovery agent” shall mean the third party Vehicle Recovery Company (state the fullname of the company instructed to repossess the vehicle) whorepossessed the vehicle on 21st May 2009 under instructions of theClaimant.

h) “1st WS RPH12/08/12” is the abbreviation used herein to mean 1st witnessstatement of (stateyour full name rh999) dated 12th August 2012.

2. Article 6(1) of theEuropean Convention on Human Rights

Art.6(1)ECHR provides as follows:

"(1) In the determination of his civil rightsand obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled toa fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent andimpartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publiclybut the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in theinterests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society,where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the partiesso require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court inspecial circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice”.

a) In respect of the above, John respectfully advisesthis Court that he believes that there has been a procedural error by the Court’sstaff in the administration process of the Claimants’ claim. It should be noted that upon John filing hisacknowledgement of service of the claim on him, before he had any opportunityto prepare and file his Defence against the claim, Allocation Questionnaires(AQ) were served on the parties by the Court, John believes that the AQ’s wereserved prematurely and thereby prevented him from having the right to file hisDefence. John is a litigant acting inperson in these proceedings and he has no legal training whatsoever. He works full time and after work he isstudying/researching relevant areas of law applicable to this case and civilprocedure and he is committed to helping the Court to further the overridingobjectives.

b) In the light of the above, John believes that hehas not yet been provided with his entitlement to prepare a particularisedDefence & Counterclaim or any Defence at all against the Claimants’ claim,in this regard, John would respectfully contend that the Claimants’ applicationfor summary judgment is premature and invites the Court to dismiss the same onthese grounds alone and if the Court sees that it would be just to dismiss theClaimants’ said application, Johnrespectfully asks the Court to hold a Case Management Conference on the 15thAugust 2012 and give directions to the parties as to the future management ofthe case in preparation for a full Trial.

3. Defence & Counterclaim

a) For reasons set out below, John respectfullycontends that he has not only a complete Defence against the Claimants’ claimbut also a Counterclaim thereto that is greater than the relief that theClaimant seeks and alleges to be entitled to, in this regard, John would alsorespectfully invite the Court to dismiss the Claimants’ application and givecase management directions Ordering the Claimant to file and serveparticularised Particulars of Claim (which he has not done) within 14 days ofservice of the Order and direct that John be permitted to file and serve hisparticularised Defence & Counterclaim thereto within 21 days of service onhim of the Claimants’ particularised statement of case.

4. Introduction– Nature of the Case/Background

a) Thecase before the Court is a repudiation of contract case that the Court has beencalled upon to determine which of the two parties repudiated the contract. The matter is subject to this litigation broughtby the Claimant following the breakdown in the relationship between the partiesto the contract, the Claimant and the Company, and John’s unsuccessfulpre-action attempts and efforts on ADR trying to resolve this dispute with theClaimant to whom John’s company, (business name of your company), contractedwith and to whom John, as the Director of the Company, signed the guaranteethat was bound to the contract.

b) Itis understood to be common ground that the parties agree that the dispute arosevery shortly after the 11/05/09; the date the Claimant alleges to have securedthe grounds to terminate the contract pursuant to clause 11b therein, John does not admit to nor accept theClaimants’ allegation. It is also agreedbetween the parties, that under clause 2(k)(ii) of the contract, the Claimantand the Company may agree to a variation of the contract and agree to changethe due date of monthly payments; such an agreement to vary the due date of themonthly payments was agreed to between the parties, and as of (state the date), the due date for payment wasagreed to be set for the 30th of each month, Exhibit “RPH1” servedattached to John’s 1ST witnessstatement dated 12/08/12 (1st WS RPH 12/08/12) provides irrefutable evidence as to the factsof said agreed variation to the due date of monthly payments. It should be noted that it is averred by Johnthat the said agreed due date for monthly payments holds in favour of both thecompany’s and John’s Defence against the Claimants’ claim, the same is thecentral matter of this case as to the allegations made by the Claimant, wherebyhe alleges that the company defaulted on the contract and caused prejudice tothe Claimants’ rights in the vehicle, however, the evidence, Exhibits “???” (state exhibit name), servedattached to the witness statement of (state person’s name) dated (state date)in support of the Claimants’ application, does not substantiate the Claimants’said allegations and is contradicted and undermined by Johns’ evidencecontained in his Exhibits “RPH1”substantiating the matters set out in his 1stWS RPH 12/08/12.

c) Therewas a minor technical error on the part of the company in (April 2009? – state actual date)in returning its accounts to Companies House on time, as a consequence of such,the company was temporarily dissolved (not liquidated nor inadministration). John was in fullcommunication with Companies House on behalf of the company in respect of itssaid minor error and at the same time he also made the Claimant fully aware ofthe same and of the fact that he (John) was following the correct procedures inorder to remedy the company’s said minor error (para.6 1st WS RPH 12/08/12).

d) Withthe company temporarily dissolved in April 2009, the due payment that fell dueon the 30th April 2009 pursuant to the said agreed variation to themonthly payment due date, would not be met by the company’s Bank under theDirect Debit facility that was set up as the method to serve the company’spayment obligations to the Claimant. John realised this and corresponded by telephone with the Claimant onthe 8th May 2009 to inform him of this fact also; during thetelephone call, John proposed to pay thecompany’s April 2009 using his personal debit card, the Claimant agreed to thisand April’s payment was duly made there and then by John.

e) Notwithstandingthe Claimants’ clear and unequivocal affirmation of the contract on the 8thMay 2009 and the fact that he was fully aware of the company’s position andthat John was in the process of putting the company back ‘”on track” withCompanies House, so to speak, the Claimant then sent notice dated 11/05/09 thathe had terminated the contract on the same and that he would be instructing hisrecovery agent to repossess the vehicle; John contacted the Claimant regarding the facts set out above, theClaimant disregarded the same; John thenrequested that the contract be transferred pursuant to clause (state the clause rh999) to another companythat John had set up in order to maintain the contract and their relationship,again, the Claimant disregarded the same and instructed the recovery agent torepossess the vehicle on the 21st May 2009. The recovery agent is a joint wrongdoer withthe Claimant and jointly liable with him for the loss caused to John (referredto below) pursuant to the established principle of joint liability per theauthority of Lumley v Gye [1853] EWHC QB J73, in this regard, the recoveryagent ought to be made a party to these proceedings with the Claimant as part20 Defendant Claimants to Johns’ Counterclaim referred to below.

f) Johnrespectfully protested against the Claimants’ action of terminating thecontract on the 11/05/2009 and lodged a sincere and legitimate dispute with theClaimant, whereby John asserted that, in the light of the circumstances of thismatter, the Claimant did not have the grounds to insist upon his rights andthat he had terminated the contract in haste and in wrongful reliance of theclause 11, the Claimant disagreed and generically repeated clause 11 withoutspecifying what term thereof and without explaining his reason(s) forterminating the contract, John was left frustrated by the Claimants’unwillingness to engage in discussion to try and resolve the matter, the dispute was deadlocked as of July 2009. A period of over two and a half years passedtherefrom before the Claimant issued these proceedings, John contends that thislengthy delay by the Claimant in bringing this action requires a validexplanation.

g) Asset out above (para 3), John contends that as the third party affected by theClaimants’ repudiation of the contract with the company and wrongful action ofrepossessing the vehicle therefrom and depriving the company of its and Johns’rights to seisin in the vehicle, that he has a Counterclaim against theClaimants’ claim for the loss of £10,000 caused by the Claimants’ inequitableactions taken against the company. Should the Court direct this dispute to full Trial, John will particularisethis element in his Defence & Counterclaim, substantiate the same withdocumentary evidence and at the Trial he will rely upon the authority OBG Ltdand others v Allan and other, Douglas and another and others v Hello! Ltd andothers & Mainstream Properties Ltd v Young and others and another [2007]UKHL 21, where the Lords affirmed the principle that even a third party who isnot a party to a contract is entitled to damages if the wrongdoings of a partyto the contract or his agent has an affect on that third party that causes aloss to him.

5. CPRPart 24 r.24.2 Grounds for summary judgment

a) 24.2

The court may give summaryjudgment against a claimant or defendant on the whole of a claim or on aparticular issue if—

(a) it considers that—

(i) that claimant has no realprospect of succeeding on the claim or issue; or

(ii) that defendant has no real prospectof successfully defending the claim or issue; and

(b) there is no other compellingreason why the case or issue should be disposed of at a trial.

(Rule 3.4 makes provision for thecourt to strike out (GL) a statement of case or part of a statement of case ifit appears that it discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending aclaim.)

b) Inorder to defeat the application for summary judgment it is sufficient for therespondent to show some "prospect", i.e. some chance of success. Thatprospect must be "real", i.e. the court will disregard prospectswhich are false, fanciful or imaginary. The inclusion of the word"real" means that the respondent has to have a case which is betterthan merely arguable (International Finance Corp v Utexafrica Sprl [2001]C.L.C. 1361 and ED&F Man Liquid Products Ltd v Patel [2003] EWCA Civ 472).The respondent is not required to show that their case will probably succeed attrial. A case may be held to have a "real prospect" of success evenif it is improbable. However, in such a case the court is likely to make aconditional order (as to which, see the commentary to r.24.6).

c) Thehearing of an application for summary judgment is not a summary trial. Thecourt at the summary judgment application will consider the merits of therespondent's case only to the extent necessary to determine whether it hassufficient merit to proceed to trial. The proper disposal of an issue under Pt24 does not involve the court conducting a mini-trial (per Lord Woolf M.R. inSwain v Hillman [2001] 1 All E.R. 91. How the court decides whether a defenceis real without conducting a mini-trial has led to a series of unsatisfactorycases now hopefully concluded by the clear statements of authority in ThreeRivers DC v Bank of England (No.3) [2001] 2 All E.R. 513, HL (a summaryjudgment application; see especially, the speech of Lord Hope of Craighead atparas 94 and 95) and ED&F Man Liquid Products Ltd v Patel [2003] EWCA Civ472 (a set aside application; see especially paras 9, 10, 11, 52 and 53 in thejudgment of Potter L.J.). At a trial, the criterion to be applied by the courtis probability: victory goes to the party whose case is the more probable(taking into account the burden of proof). This is not true of a summaryjudgment application. "The criterion which the judge has to apply underCPR Pt 24 is not one of probability; it is absence of reality." (LordHobhouse of Woodborough in Three Rivers DC v Bank of England (No.3) [2001] 2All E.R. 513).

d) Wherea summary judgment application gives rise to a short point of law orconstruction, the court should decide that point if it has before it all theevidence necessary for a proper determination and it is satisfied that theparties have had an adequate opportunity to address the point in argument. Thecourt should not allow a case to go forward to trial simply because there is apossibility of some further evidence arising (ICI Chemicals & Polymers Ltdv TTE Training Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 725:

"if the respondent's case isbad in law, he will in truth have no real prospect of succeeding on his claimor successfully defending the claim against him, as the case may be. Similarly,if the applicant's case is bad in law, the sooner that is determined, thebetter" (per Moore-Bick L.J.)).

e) InED&F Man Liquid Products Ltd v Patel [2003] EWCA Civ 472; [2003] EWCA Civ472, it was said that under r.24.2 the overall burden of proof rests on theapplicant to establish that there are grounds to believe that the respondenthas no real prospect of success and that there is no other reason for a trial.The existence of this burden is indicated by para.2(3) of the PracticeDirection supplementing Pt 24; the applicant must (a) identify concisely anypoint of law or provision in a document on which they rely, and/or (b) statethat the application is made because the applicant believes that on theevidence the respondent has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim orissue or (as the case may be) of successfully defending the claim or issue towhich the application relates, and in either case state that the applicantknows of no other reason why the disposal of the claim or issue should awaittrial. The essential ingredient is the applicant's belief that the respondenthas no real prospect of success and that there is no other reason for a trial.

f) Ifthe applicant for summary judgment adduces credible evidence in support oftheir application, the respondent becomes subject to an evidential burden ofproving some real prospect of success or some other reason for a trial. Thestandard of proof required of the respondent is not high. It suffices merely torebut the applicant's statement of belief. The language of r.24.2 ("noreal prospect ... no other reason ...") indicates that, in determining thequestion, the court must apply a negative test. The respondent's case mustcarry some degree of conviction: the court is not required to accept withoutquestion any assertion they make: Britannia Building Society v Prangley June12, 2000, unrep.

6. Claimants’application for summary judgment

a) TheClaimant has made an application dated (state the date) forsummary judgment under CPR Pt 24 which is before the Court today. The Claimant alleges that the companydefaulted on the contract and in doing so, the Claimant alleges that his rightsin the vehicle were prejudiced, this, the claimants alleges, entitled him toterminate the contract with the company and call in the guarantee against John, however, it should be noted that the Claimanthas not produced any evidence with his summary judgment application tosubstantiate his said allegations. Further, it should also be noted that the Claimant has not taken anyaction against the company to recover the monies that the Claimant alleges aredue and owing to him. Given that thecompany was the principle debtor under the contract, the Claimant should havepursued his allegations in an action against the company first before bringingthis action against John.

b) Johnhas filed and served a substantive response to the Claimants’ application; Johns’ response has answered the same in fulland the matters set out in 1st WS RPH 12/08/12 are supported withconsiderable evidence which contradict the Claimants’ unsubstantiated allegations. In the light of the material and evidencerelied upon by John in opposing the Claimants’ application, it is proper to conclude that John hasdemonstrated to this Court that he has a strong and realistic prospect ofsucceeding with his Defence & Counterclaim at Trial against the Claimants’weak and unsubstantiated claim, in this regard, the Claimants’ applicationought to be dispensed with without any further ado with no Order as to costs onthe same.

7. TheLaw

a) Thiscase is subject to English Contract Law and the remedies available to theinnocent party to the contract under Common law and the law of Equity followingfundamental breach/repudiation of the contract.

8. Indexof Authorities

a) (you can fillthis bit out rh999, simply list out the authorities that you have filed andserved with your WS)

9. Indexof Law Books

a) (if you can gethold of The White Book Vol.1 and Chitty on Contracts – that would be mosthelpful to you. Ask your previouslyinstructed solicitors if they can loan you the same for the hearing on themorrow, no harm in asking rh999)

10. ANDTHE DEFENDANT RESPONDENT CLAIMS

a) Forall the facts stated herein and all the facts stated in 1st WS RPH 12/08/12, accordingly, John respectfullycontends that the Claimants’ unsubstantiated application against him and theClaimants’ unsubstantiated claim against the company and against him fails,therefore, John respectfully asks thisCourt to strike out the Claimants’ application and his claim with no Order asto costs and award Judgment in favour of Johns’ substantiated evidence in replyto the same with costs.

b) Inthe alternative, for all the facts stated herein and all the facts stated in 1st WS RPH 12/05/12, Johnrespectfully asks this Court to dismiss the Claimants’ application with noOrder as to costs and hold a Case Management Conference handing down directionsto the parties for the future management of this case in preparation for theTrial and, save that no Order as to costs on the Claimants’ application, theparties costs be reserved to the Trial Judge for the costs stage of thislitigation.

MRJOHN MICHAEL SMITH

(printed name only rh999)

Claim No. & Forthe Hearing on 15th August 2012 & 1st SkeletonArgument of you & the date – all to go in the HEADER top right-handside. Page Nos. in the FOOTER bottomright-hand side.

I have not spell& grammar checked any of the above. I cannot edit this post, so apologise for any lack of spacing betweenwords or paragraphs.

Get stuck into it nowrh999, print 3 copies off for the morrow, hole punch the same and put treasury tagsin (if you can). I hope this will helpyou on the morrow also. What time isHearing?

Kind regards

The Mould

[rh999]

will get onto this now.

10.30am

[rh999]

just reading about the AQ bit. is the process to put defence in before AQ's? or after?

[rh999]

the Mould,

question on para 4 g.

statement - g) Asset out above (para 3), John contends that as the third party affected by theClaimants’ repudiation of the contract with the company and wrongful action ofrepossessing the vehicle therefrom and depriving the company of its and Johns’rights to seisin in the vehicle

 

seisin - underlined in the statement. is this a typo?

[The Mould]

just reading about the AQ bit. is the process to put defence in before AQ's? or after?

 

After acknowledgement of service, the Defendant files his Defence (and Counterclaim, if he has one), the Court then serves the same on the Claimant and the Claimant then has 28 days to notify the Court as to whether he wishes to proceed with his claim, if he does, then the Court will serve the AQ's on the parties. (if the Claimant does not serve notice on the Court within the 28 day period, the claim/proceedings will be stayed).

 

The AQ's in your case appear to have been served prematurely and in error by the Courts' staff.

 

I believe that on the morrow the Judge will conclude that you have submitted sufficient material to justify a dismmissal of Claimants' app. The Judge may or may not strike out claim and hold in your favour based upon the evidence you have filed, you just don't know rh999, all depends on the Judge.

 

Most likely result will be, Claimants' app dismissed with no Order as to costs followed immediately by Case Management Conference and directions.

 

All in your capable hands now. Post up the result as soon as you return home please.

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

[The Mould]

seisin, no not a typo - correctly spelt.

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

[The Mould]

rh999

 

logging off now.

 

Good luck for the morrow. Catch up then. Goodnight.

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

[rh999]

Skeleton Argument data removed.pdf

 

Updated SA with personal data removed.

 

how does it look?

[rh999]

Ok thanks The mould. i will check on here before leaving to see if you have had a chance to check the SA.

[The Mould]

Ok thanks The mould. i will check on here before leaving to see if you have had a chance to check the SA.

 

Going to download it in a moment. Are you able to get hold of a copy of The White Book Vol.1 from your previously instructed solicitors - just for a few hours? This White Book is the Gospel on Civil Procedure

 

rh999 have a look at this

Cut andpaste this onto a separate A4 sheet, print off x 3 copies.

Ifcounsel or solicitor for the Claimant (whoever turns up to represent him) putsany objections to the Judge with regards to your late service of your WS; then simply and respectfully refer the Judgeto the CPR Pt 3 below (hand him a copy and the Claimants’ rep) and ask theJudge to please allow your WS as you are acting in person and have no legalexperience but you are study civil procedure and you are learning what theprocess is.

Only produce thisand refer to it if the Claimants’ rep objects to your late service, otherwisekeep it in your own file.

CPR Part 3

Rule 3.10 General power of thecourt to rectify matters where there has been an error of procedure

3.10

Wherethere has been an error of procedure such as a failure to comply with a rule orpractice direction—

(a) theerror does not invalidate any step taken in the proceedings unless the court soorders; and

(b) thecourt may make an order to remedy the error.

Effectof non-compliance

3.10.1In these rules, as under the previous rules, non-compliance with a rule, or(under these rules) a practice direction, does not nullify the proceedings orany step taken in the proceedings unless the court so orders. Instead the courthas power to make an order to remedy the error, i.e. deal with thenon-compliance. This power is additional to its power to strike out a statementof case (r.3.4) or order a party to pay a sum of money into court (r.3.1(5)) incases in which such orders would be appropriate where there is some failure tocomply with a rule or practice direction. (The power in r.3.4 also applies onnon-compliance with a court order. The power in r.3.1(5) also applies onnon-compliance with a pre-action protocol.)

In CalaHomes (South) Ltd v Chichester DC (Time Limits) [2000] C.P. Rep. 28; [2000] 79P. & C.R. 430, an application was made under Pt 8 in the High Court CentralOffice which should have been made under RSC Ord.94 r.1 in the High Court CrownOffice. On an application to transfer the proceedings to the correct office itwas held that, in the absence of a court ruling under r.3.10 that theproceedings had not been started, neither the use of the wrong claim form norits filing in the wrong office made the application a nullity. Since the formsused fully set out the basis for the grounds of the application in terms thatwere conceded to be sufficient, the overriding objective was best achieved bytransferring the proceedings to the High Court Crown Office.

(In July2000 the Crown Office was renamed as the Administrative Court:.)

PracticeDirection (Committal Applications), para.10 states that on an application foran order for committal of a person to prison for contempt of court the courtmay waive any procedural defect "in the commencement or conduct of"the application if satisfied that "no injustice has been cased to therespondent by the defect" (see also M v P (Contempt of Court: CommittalOrder); Butler v Butler [1992] 3 W.L.R. 813, CA (in determining whether toreverse or vary a contempt order on appeal the court should ask itself whethernotwithstanding any departure from the proper procedure the alleged contemnorhad suffered any injustice)).

Notealso r.52.11(3)(b) (power of appeal court to allow appeal where decision oflower court unjust because of serious procedural irregularity).

Kind regards

The Mould

[The Mould]

Will try and get on in morning to wish you good luck.

 

Goodnight for now.

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

[rh999]

Hi The Mould

just a quick question on one of the paragraphs, specifically below in red.

6.

(a) The Claimant has made an application dated 22nd June 2012 for summary judgment under CPR Pt 24 which is before the Court today. The Claimant alleges that the company defaulted on the contract and in doing so, the Claimant alleges that his rights in the vehicle were prejudiced, this, the claimants alleges, entitled him to terminate the contract with the company and call in the guarantee against , however, it should be noted that the Claimant has not produced any evidence with his summary judgment application to substantiate his said allegations. Further, it should also be noted that the Claimant has not taken any action against the company to recover the monies that the Claimant alleges are due and owing to him. Given that the company was the principle debtor under the contract, the Claimant should have pursued his allegations in an action against the company first before bringing this action against.

 

they may respond to this by stating that they could not chase the company as it no longer existed, so they chased me as guarantor. how would i respond to this?

 

thanks

[rh999]

Hi The Mould,

ref the white book - I will call him first thing and ask.

 

thanks for the extra bits, I was worried they may pull that one.

[rh999]

Just at court now. They have solicitor trying it on. GE hasn't been given pack by claimant and is pulling cpr24.

 

I sent pack guaranteed delivery yesterday.

 

What's my response?

[The Mould]

Just at court now. They have solicitor trying it on. GE hasn't been given pack by claimant and is pulling cpr24.

 

I sent pack guaranteed delivery yesterday.

 

What's my response?

 

rh999

 

Been out this morning.

 

You are not responsible for any errors of the Claimant (this message is probably obsolete by now).

 

Will wait to hear back from you, hopefully that will be very shortly now - with some good news.

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

[rh999]

Hi,

 

You would think that wouldn't you.

 

Not good news i'm afraid.

 

My defence struck out. Dj would not consider my defence at all under cpr24. Despite me trying the sheet you gave me.

 

Judgement awarded against me and full costs awarded also.

[The Mould]

Hi,

 

You would think that wouldn't you.

 

Not good news i'm afraid.

 

My defence struck out. Dj would not consider my defence at all under cpr24. Despite me trying the sheet you gave me.

 

Judgement awarded against me and full costs awarded also.

 

What on earth happened at the hearing then rh999?

 

What reasons did the judge give for refusing to hear your evidence in response to the Claimants' app?

 

Let us know please rh999, the grounds to appeal this decision may exist depending on the judge's ruling.

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould