Small claims - Interfering with court procedure?

pogofish

I wonder if anyone has any idea of the wrongness of this?

Briefly, a friend has become involved in a dispute with a tradesman who did a very shoddy job and whilst they have paid the material costs and a portion of the total invoice, they have now been taken to the small claims court for the rest of the money they witheld.

Now that is fine and after an initial hearing that established there was a dispute a date has been set for a fuller hearing.

In the meantime, the person acting for the tradesman has been trying to stir things-up against my friend locally. This has included talking to family members on their employer's time, making public threats about pursuing them for extra "expenses" and "compensation" far above the limits of small claims, taking action for slander (yeah! ) asking an elderly parent to interfere and get them to withdraw the action, generally fishing for as much info as possible about them and the person speaking for them and threatening to report them to DSS for having "lodgers" etc - which they don't.

I have a feeling this is somewhat against the spirit of and maybe the law for a matter that is now in the hands of a court.

Can anyone confirm or point me at any further info?

Thanks

Bryando

I've been reading Scottish Law for a number of years as a hobby, mainly Criminal and civil law,which applies here. Currently a Law student.

Does your friend have a Lawyer acting on his/her behalf, or are they using what is meant to be a 'simple to use system' ie going alone? Who is the person 'acting' for the Tradesman? Rather confussed by your post.

I would not be giving a rise to anybody. The Sheriff court (small claims) is the place to be putting a case forward. By the sounds of it, the Tradesman 'acting' representation is asking for court procedure to be dropped? But I thought it was the Tradesman that started this to recover money owed?


'' asking an elderly parent to interfere and get them to withdraw the action''

I may just be misreading your post here. But after reading a few times it jumps about. The Tradesman starts the case, the Tradesman representaive is trying to stir things up . Yet the same person whom is acting for the Tradesman, the one whom started the case has tried to get somebody involved to make your friend drop the case??? I would have thought is this context your friend had got somebody to get the Pursuer ie Tradesman to withdraw court action.

Not the pursuer getting the respondant to withdraw.

pogofish

Thanks for your reply Bryando.

No, my pal does not have a lawyer but does have a lay person to speak for them. The maximum expenses claimable under small claims does not even cover an hour of an average lawyers time.

Yes, the Tradesman is asking for the full sum to be paid but that notwithstanding, their representative has decided to pester others not concerned with the case out of court (its a small town, the whole lot of them don't live far apart) - Which is what gives me concern about a serious breach of procedure or some other misconduct. My understanding is that once a case is submitted, all communication should be kept for the court. Since I last posted, there has also been another letter sent directly to my pal.

To clarify - The tradesman's rep (also a lay person) has hassled the pursuer's mother and a couple of other people in order to try and scare payment out of them (which would inevitably end the case). Then when the pursuer showed-up with their own rep and clearly established that this was a dispute, rather than a simple non payment issue, the tradesman's rep then started trying to dig the dirt about my pal's rep too.

And no, the pursuer is not trying to get them to withdraw, as they have very clear evidence of shoddy work.

LilacPixie

Is harrasment not a criminal act?

Nosht

pogofish wrote: »

I wonder if anyone has any idea of the wrongness of this?

Briefly, a friend has become involved in a dispute with a tradesman who did a very shoddy job and whilst they have paid the material costs and a portion of the total invoice, they have now been taken to the small claims court for the rest of the money they witheld.

Now that is fine and after an initial hearing that established there was a dispute a date has been set for a fuller hearing.

In the meantime, the person acting for the tradesman has been trying to stir things-up against my friend locally. This has included talking to family members on their employer's time, making public threats about pursuing them for extra "expenses" and "compensation" far above the limits of small claims, taking action for slander (yeah! ) asking an elderly parent to interfere and get them to withdraw the action, generally fishing for as much info as possible about them and the person speaking for them and threatening to report them to DSS for having "lodgers" etc - which they don't.

I have a feeling this is somewhat against the spirit of and maybe the law for a matter that is now in the hands of a court.

Can anyone confirm or point me at any further info?

Thanks

Not slander in Scotland, Defamation is the term. If it's true then it's not defamation.
See a lawyer about raising a counter claim for defamation in view of the threats.

Regards,

N.

Bryando

Depends what you mean 'threats'. The EXACT nature of them. As a threat could be classed as an 'assult', however this depends on the exact content etc etc etc.

pogofish

Thanks.

There has been one threat that might be considered "assault" but for obvious reasons, I'm not being too specific. Most relate to further litigation/expenses/damages that are way above wht my pal can afford and are probably outside the remit of small claims TBH.

Its more just an attempt to wind-up her and her family and I'm trying to work out if there is any way it could be brought to bear on the case.

Bamber19

Nosht wrote: »

Not slander in Scotland, Defamation is the term. If it's true then it's not defamation.
See a lawyer about raising a counter claim for defamation in view of the threats.

Regards,

N.

Threats and defamation are usually quite separate things, it's not clear who the threats are expressed to but if it's the individuals themselves then there's no question of defamation and if the allegations of fraud for having lodgers is expressed to friends and relatives then it's a relatively trivial matter to attempt further litigation, especially where the likelihood is that it's having no affect on the individuals character, nor is any harm being caused as the few people hearing it likely know it's a nonsense.

Bryando wrote: »

Depends what you mean 'threats'. The EXACT nature of them. As a threat could be classed as an 'assult', however this depends on the exact content etc etc etc.

Similarly a threat actually being treated as assault is exceptionally rare, if the Police did happen to take it seriously i'd still bet my house on the procurator fiscal dropping it. Again i'm not sure it's in the best interests of the people mentioned to be extending their dealings with the trader any longer than they need to.

pogofish wrote: »

Thanks.

There has been one threat that might be considered "assault" but for obvious reasons, I'm not being too specific. Most relate to further litigation/expenses/damages that are way above wht my pal can afford and are probably outside the remit of small claims TBH.

Its more just an attempt to wind-up her and her family and I'm trying to work out if there is any way it could be brought to bear on the case.

In terms of the outcome of the case it's not going to have an effect, if the facts suggest payment should be made, payment should be made. It will simply annoy the court for things that aren't relevant to be brought up.