What is the Judge up to?

The_Deep

From PP blog re CEL/Deal last minute no show.

The defendant arrived at Chelmsford court by 9.30 for a hearing due at 10.00. 2 hours were set aside for the They went into the courtroom just after 10. Judge Rodger after exchange of pleasantries asked if they had got the letter? (What letter? No, I haven't had any letter.) He then said that he had just received a letter at 9.50 from DEAL stating that they were discontinuing the case against me ......... therefore, case to be 'Struck out'. The defendant asked what he could claim against DEL/CEL and the judge replied that he could not claim anything. He said that he had read the counter claim but that he should be pleased that its over. The defendant asked about expenses etc that he had listed, but the judge again said that he had no claim and that was it. "Go and enjoy Chelmsford.

This seems a bit harsh? Of course, one does not know the nature of the expenses/counter claim, which may have been frivolous, but to refuse travel expenses/loss of earnings when the claimant has pulled out at the last second sends to be sending the PPC a message that such behaviour is OK.

bargepole

The_Deep wrote: »

From PP blog re CEL/Deal last minute no show.

The defendant arrived at Chelmsford court by 9.30 for a hearing due at 10.00. 2 hours were set aside for the They went into the courtroom just after 10. Judge Rodger after exchange of pleasantries asked if they had got the letter? (What letter? No, I haven't had any letter.) He then said that he had just received a letter at 9.50 from DEAL stating that they were discontinuing the case against me ......... therefore, case to be 'Struck out'. The defendant asked what he could claim against DEL/CEL and the judge replied that he could not claim anything. He said that he had read the counter claim but that he should be pleased that its over. The defendant asked about expenses etc that he had listed, but the judge again said that he had no claim and that was it. "Go and enjoy Chelmsford.

This seems a bit harsh? Of course, one does not know the nature of the expenses/counter claim, which may have been frivolous, but to refuse travel expenses/loss of earnings when the claimant has pulled out at the last second sends to be sending the PPC a message that such behaviour is OK.

This just highlights the massive inconsistency that you get between different County Courts and District Judges.


We've known of some Judges who have bent over backwards to award a defendant every penny they possibly can (even when it wasn't a cost incurred), and others who are very reluctant to award costs at all.


Technically, as the claim was struck out, rather than being dismissed after a hearing, the Judge is correct because the case never got started, but he should have at least awarded travelling expenses.

bod1467

So the defendant now becomes a claimant and raises a claim against CEL/DEAL for their costs?

The_Deep

bod1467 wrote: »

So the defendant now becomes a claimant and raises a claim against CEL/DEAL for their costs?

So, all is not lost then, but what about the counter claim, should not the appellant have been allowed to continue with that?

bod1467

I didn't think you could counter-claim in the small claims track ... I thought a "counter-claim" had to be a separate claim?

But I agree - the judge should have awarded costs.

straighttalker

bod1467 wrote: »

So the defendant now becomes a claimant and raises a claim against CEL/DEAL for their costs?

The Defendant cannot merely turn into a Claimant at their whim. Once a case has been heard regards one matter, it cannot be heard again. In any event, costs aren't awarded in Small Claim's Track matters other than the issue fee and limited expert fees if utilised. If the Defendant erroneously included the costs for the time and expense of defending the matter, the judge must have quite rightly ignored that claim. The judge however should have awarded some expenses for travelling to Court given that DEAL discontinued 10 minutes prior to the hearing taking place.

If the counterclaim was properly served alongside the Defence, the Judge should have considered that notwithstanding discontinuance of the original claim.

bod1467

straighttalker wrote: »

The Defendant cannot merely turn into a Claimant at their whim. Once a case has been heard regards one matter, it cannot be heard again.

Erm ... I'm not sure that's correct. If the motorist wants to claim his costs (expenses) then he is completely at liberty to start a new MCOL/claim.

straighttalker

Have a look at the meaning of the term "res judicata". Once an issue has been heard before a competent Court, it cannot be reheard again in a separate set of proceedings. It's to stop disgruntled parties issuing proceedings again and again until they get a decision that suits them. It's also to ensure that the system of common law and binding precedents aren't undermined.

If the Defendant in this case had included all of his claim for costs in that set of proceedings and the Judge dismissed them, his only recourse would have been to request permission to appeal the Judge's decision there and then or on paper shortly thereafter.

Captain_Leaky

Legal technicalities aside, I truly believe that the judge in this particular instance should heed the advice of his peers and take early retirement. Sometimes, irrespective of qualifications, experience and ability, you simply cannot educate pork.

The_Deep

I truly believe that the judge in this particular instance should heed the advice of his peers and take early retirement.

I must have missed that, please point me to the piece(s) of brotherly criticism.

esmerobbo

Just too prove what a lottery it is, this time it cost CEL/DEAL £190.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/deal-fail-to-turn-up-judge-awards-costs.html