Kiesha v HSBC - **WON IN COURT WITH WASTED COSTS!**

[Gez]

The hearing is intended to give directions for the hearing of some or all these cases in a way in which saves time and expense. It is hoped that all parties will attend but if this is not practicable the Court will be pleased to consider the written views of any party provided that these reach the Court no later than [Date].

Doesn't this bit mean that it is just the pre-trial review for directions, not the actual hearing? Even so, a ruling appears to have been made.

[GaryH]

Keisha,

 

The key bit is the order which you posted

 

[/center]

If I read this correctly then that means:

 

In the High Court of Justice

Queen's Bench Division

London Mercantile Court

 

 

Which as I read it is a binding judgement of the High Court. The fact that they followed the small claims costs rules is immaterial.

It was effectively a default judgement in a SCT directions hearing, so I doubt it.

 

FWIW, when the draft of the Berwick judgement was first realised, in its title was;

In the High Court of Justice

Birmingham Civil Justice Centre

address, etc...

 

Which had us in a bit of a flap for a day or two to say the least!

[dad]

Doesn't this bit mean that it is just the pre-trial review for directions, not the actual hearing? Even so, a ruling appears to have been made.

 

Gez,

 

you are right but the Court has wide powers under the Civil Procedure Rules and an obligation under the overriding objective to actively manage case. This includes deciding promptly which issues need full investigation and trial and accordingly disposing summarily of the others.

 

What I believe happened was that the Judge decided that the charges were so obviously penalties that he summarily disposed of the case especially when HSBC didn't turn up.

 

Therefore precedent because the Mercantile Court is part of the High Court. Therefore the Berwick judgement goes in the bin.

[gizmo111]

It is judgement by default - it has happened before in the same mercantile court in a Citi case - no ruling has been made on the legalities of the charges therfore no precedent set.

[Kiesha]

I got a letter from their solicitors on Friday 22nd June saying that although they (Solicitors) did not know about the court case (lie), due to the small amount of the claim and the already mounting costs of defending the claim, they had decided not to pursue the matter and were sending the amount in full.

 

I recieved a cheque for the full amount from HSBC yesterday.

 

I have got all my money. LOL.

 

Thanks to those who gave me advice.

 

:-D :-D :o