Small Claims Court guide

topbanana1985

Thank you kindly unholyangel and steampowered, your info is both reassuring and helpful, I very much appreciate it. And very quick too, I was expecting to wait a day or 2 for replies, so thank you also for the super swift responses.

This gives me the hope and confidence to go ahead with it.

steampowered: Thank you for the suggestion, I do not think I need any more specific input, not at this moment in time anyway. If that changes, then I certainly shall heed your advice on starting a new thread. But for now, both of you have answered my questions.

Thanks again.

topbanana1985

Oh, sorry, 1 more quick question, does "Without prejudice" mean that I cannot use it in court as evidence?

The majority of correspondence from the company in question has put "Without prejudice" on their letters, so does it mean I am not allowed to show these letters in court/to the Judge?

steampowered

topbanana1985 wrote: »

Oh, sorry, 1 more quick question, does "Without prejudice" mean that I cannot use it in court as evidence?

The majority of correspondence from the company in question has put "Without prejudice" on their letters, so does it mean I am not allowed to show these letters in court/to the Judge?

The rule imposed by the court is that you are not allowed to use settlement discussions as evidence.

This is because the judicial system wants to encourage people to settle their disputes, and that means people have to be able to have frank discussions without worrying about those discussions being used against them. It is in the public interest to save money by encouraging people to settle outside of court.

The label "Without prejudice" is used to indicate that a letter is intended to be a settlement discussion and should not be used in evidence. However, it the substance of the letter that is important, rather than the label attached. If it is part of a genuine settlement discussion it can't be used as evidence; but otherwise it can be.

While such letters can't be used as evidence in the main case, there is an exception. After the main case has been decided, these letters can be referred to on the issue of legal costs if one party wants to argue that the other side should pay his/her legal costs costs because the other side has 'behaved unreasonably'. This is quite rare and would only apply if the letters were incredibly toxic.

In any event, letters exchanged between the parties are not usually relevant. The judge simply has to decide whether or not you have a valid claim. This usually bears no relation to what was written in letters about the claim. For example if your claim is that were sold a faulty product, the judge will simply decide whether the product was faulty, he/she won't be interested in the letters discussing it.

topbanana1985

steampowered wrote: »

The rule imposed by the court is that you are not allowed to use settlement discussions as evidence.

This is because the judicial system wants to encourage people to settle their disputes, and that means people have to be able to have frank discussions without worrying about those discussions being used against them. It is in the public interest to save money by encouraging people to settle outside of court.

The label "Without prejudice" is used to indicate that a letter is intended to be a settlement discussion and should not be used in evidence. However, it the substance of the letter that is important, rather than the label attached. If it is part of a genuine settlement discussion it can't be used as evidence; but otherwise it can be.

While such letters can't be used as evidence in the main case, there is an exception. After the main case has been decided, these letters can be referred to on the issue of legal costs if one party wants to argue that the other side should pay his/her legal costs costs because the other side has 'behaved unreasonably'. This is quite rare and would only apply if the letters were incredibly toxic.

In any event, letters exchanged between the parties are not usually relevant. The judge simply has to decide whether or not you have a valid claim. This usually bears no relation to what was written in letters about the claim. For example if your claim is that were sold a faulty product, the judge will simply decide whether the product was faulty, he/she won't be interested in the letters discussing it.

Thank you for the info.
The letters in question are responses to my complaint, so as you say, hopefully not really relevant other than to show that the company have refused to accept any responsibility for their mistakes and tried passing the blame onto others. The letters contain no settlement attempts from them, just excuses of why they think they are not to blame.

I just wanted to check, so as not to waste the courts/judges and my time sending copies of letters which I am unable to use in court.

Thank you for the clarification, very much appreciated.

Crazy_Jamie

topbanana1985 wrote: »

The letters in question are responses to my complaint, so as you say, hopefully not really relevant other than to show that the company have refused to accept any responsibility for their mistakes and tried passing the blame onto others. The letters contain no settlement attempts from them, just excuses of why they think they are not to blame.

I just wanted to check, so as not to waste the courts/judges and my time sending copies of letters which I am unable to use in court.

Thank you for the clarification, very much appreciated.

In which case it may well be that it can be shown to the Judge. You can't simply put 'without prejudice' at the top of a letter and claim it can't be used as evidence. Depending on what the nature of your case is it may be that the correspondence sent after your complaint is relevant. For example, that correspondence may contract the case that they are now advancing. You should be careful that you don't put correspondence before the Judge that does contain attempts to settle or discussions regarding settlement, but if it is simply correspondence relating to the substantive issue in the case it is probably not 'without prejudice' correspondence in a legal sense.

ozlem

I once took Royal Mail to SCC for loosing our passports. I lost the case but the judge did not order me to pay their cost eventhough they requested!

topbanana1985

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

In which case it may well be that it can be shown to the Judge. You can't simply put 'without prejudice' at the top of a letter and claim it can't be used as evidence. Depending on what the nature of your case is it may be that the correspondence sent after your complaint is relevant. For example, that correspondence may contract the case that they are now advancing. You should be careful that you don't put correspondence before the Judge that does contain attempts to settle or discussions regarding settlement, but if it is simply correspondence relating to the substantive issue in the case it is probably not 'without prejudice' correspondence in a legal sense.

Ahh, ok, so maybe it is just further attempts from the company to wriggle out of it. By putting "without prejudice" on the top of every single correspondence they have sent me, maybe they think that I cannot use them.
Not a single one of them has any settlement discussion, and certainly no settlement attempts, as they refused to accept they are in the wrong. So its just a bunch of excuses, fob offs and passing the blame.

Thank you all for the info, it is most helpful.

APManning

Right, hope I've got the terminology correct... I used MCOL to lodge a claim for repayment of a personal debt (irrefutable) and the defendant didn't reply, so judgement was made in my favour. After waiting a month or two, I then enforced the judgement, sending in the bailiffs (or so I thought). The defendant asked to suspend the order, offering to pay x amount pcm, which I rejected for a whole host of valid reasons, asking for full payment instead. The hearing judged an amount even less pcm. Do I have recourse to any further action/appeal against this judgement? I'm having some financial problems, being out of work, and the return of almost £5000 in a lump sum would change things radically (obviously!) I assume it's about affordability for the defendant but what about my affordability?! Is the only next step a solicitor to deal with it? Any help gratefully received, ideally before I have to give the house back to the mortgage co!

twistednail

Not sure if anyone can help?

I worked on a film back in 2014 for which I should have been paid £4000. Mid-way through the production, it turned out that the budget that the producer had told everyone he had was not correct, and the production had to be shut down. Many people lost a lot of money, including the actors, catering company, equipment companies etc to the value of about £400,000 or thereabouts.

Over the course of a year I sent my invoices, chases and eventually a "Letter Before Action" stating how much was owed. Nothing has come out of this, with the exception of a small payment of £300 early on in the process with the rest of the money outstanding.

It is now a couple of years later and I am in a place where I can "afford" to pay the £185 court fee to take it to small claims. This loss of money has caused so many problems for me (mental health wise, and also in terms of having to pay off a large amount of debt having not being paid) and to this day I cannot get over the work that I put into this project that ended up unpaid.

How do I determine if it is worth taking this to the small claims court? I have £185 but I don't want to throw further money down the toilet. Equally, £4000 is a lot of money to me and I also don't like the fact that this man got away with his lies.

Any advice would be much appreciated.

Thanks

lincroft1710

twistednail wrote: »

How do I determine if it is worth taking this to the small claims court? I have £185 but I don't want to throw further money down the toilet. Equally, £4000 is a lot of money to me and I also don't like the fact that this man got away with his lies.

Any advice would be much appreciated.

Thanks

If he hasn't got the £3,700 (you already have £300) it would be a waste of time. He may already have judgements against him, so you may be joining a long queue. Also how likely is he to pay up?Keep emotion out of your reasoning.