Civil Enforcements / Norwich Pharmacal Order

notts_phil

Don't hold your breath sirdan.I pmd and had no reply

HO87

emachines wrote: »

I understand that the order was given against him, thats what the lady at the court said when I called at 4:50 today

I am very loathe to ever suggest that anyone has used a terminological inexactitude in their post and thought that another poster was being somewhat bold in his assertions yesterday to that effect.

However, as a result of what I saw yesterday and learned today I now believe that is exactly the phrase that describes your comments as posted.

peter_the_piper

So its quite possible that the order would be given against him (if innocent) if he did not attend. So it really would not matter if the ppc set it up or not, the result would be the same. They would now have another stick to beat the unwary with. would the judgement be binding on small claims in the future or would it be another Stephen Thomas?

HO87

As any NPO can only relate to the case it was applied for and in any event this was heard in the County Court then there would be no precedent and each application would have to be argued on its own merits. Given the possible exposure for PPC's with regard to costs I suspect that few will ever follow through but then, as we know, its not in the follow-through but the fear the potential follow-through creates.

I have serious doubts about this case and hope to be able to expand further tomorrow.

Clinker

notts_phil wrote: »

It is strange.they removed the docs from Photobucket so I can't find case number and make a sneaky phone call

From post number 34

Melton Mowbray county court. Melton Mowbray leicestershire LE131NH. claim number ISE03480. date 4th july at 10:00am
1st claimant VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES
1st defendant

notts_phil

Clinker wrote: »

From post number 34

Melton Mowbray county court. Melton Mowbray leicestershire LE131NH. claim number ISE03480. date 4th july at 10:00am
1st claimant VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES
1st defendant

Thanks clinker I shall try and do some digging tommorrow

Clinker

notts_phil wrote: »

Thanks clinker I shall try and do some digging tommorrow

Appreciated. Thanks.
It's a bit more difficult from here!
But my interest is just as strong as when I lived in UK!

nicechap

Sirdan wrote: »

But in the case of an NPO the "genuine person" pays nothing , the claimant has to pay the costs of seeking the NPO and any incidental costs incurred by the respondent.

The NPO hearing could actually aid this" genuine person" as Alexis suggests, because it implies that the claimant accepts that the person against whom the NPO is sought is a third party who may have information as opposed to the actual "wrong doer". That being the case how can they ask for an NPO and claim against the same person ??

PS:
I have politely asked the OP by PM to post the decision on here ...will be interesting to see if they respond ..if they don't what we have is what we suspected "a set up" and one that has failed.

Sorry. poor drafting by me. Yes, the PPC would have to pay. My rhetorical question was why would the OP want to part with their money without taking up any of the offers of help, and in this case, possibly not even turn up to contest, unless they were part of the set up.

Alexis27

The NPO is a like a mini hearing in itself in that the Claimant has to provide evidence why they deserve an order, and the Defendant can provide evidence why they shouldn't.

If the amount being sought can be shown to be a contractual penalty not related to any loss incurred, the order probably wouldn't be granted through having no reasonable chance of success and that it wouldn't be in the public interest.

At the very least the Claimant would have to demonstrate they have a valid contract with the landowner.

MDBJ

Alexis27's assessment sounds pretty persuasive to me. One would expect sufficient time to be given to ensure that the matter underlying the application was explored to some degree, if only to ensure that the whole thing wasn't a fishing expedition which is not permitted. As the hearing was only listed for 10 minutes one has to wonder whether it was going to be strangled at birth or perhaps someone seriously underestimated the length of time it would take to examine the facts?