Excel/BW Legal - Defendant is not RK

ElParque

Sounds like a pretty good forensic examination to me...(though who am I you may well enquire)!

Matthew87

Received a paper copy of BW Legal's WS and Exhibits in the post today.

It has a cover letter which says "Notice is hereby given pursuant to CPR 27.9 that our client will not be in attendance at the hearing, however, they will be represented by an advocate".

My understanding of CPR 27.9, is that if they've given 7 days notice (27.9(1)(a)) and has, in his written notice, requested the court to decide the claim in his absence (27.9(1)(c)), the court will take into account that party’s statement of case.

So... the notice was sent 7 days before our court date on Tuesday (even though I only received it today), but the notice doesn't say anything about the court deciding the claim in his absence.

So........ if the advocate has no RoA on Tuesday, the judge couldn't "take into account that party’s statement of case"??

Lamilad

Matthew87 wrote: »

Received a paper copy of BW Legal's WS and Exhibits in the post today.

It has a cover letter which says "Notice is hereby given pursuant to CPR 27.9 that our client will not be in attendance at the hearing, however, they will be represented by an advocate".

My understanding of CPR 27.9, is that if they've given 7 days notice (27.9(1)(a)) and has, in his written notice, requested the court to decide the claim in his absence (27.9(1)(c)), the court will take into account that party’s statement of case.

So... the notice was sent 7 days before our court date on Tuesday (even though I only received it today), but the notice doesn't say anything about the court deciding the claim in his absence.

So........ if the advocate has no RoA on Tuesday, the judge couldn't "take into account that party’s statement of case"??

You've understood 27.9.1.c quite well and you are right. They have not complied with it. This was a significant point in Cordsandcag's case on Wed. the judge accepted they'd complied with the part about writing with 7 days notice but not with sub-para 1.c. Which then meant he could strike out the claim under 27.9 (2) (a) and (b).

He can use his discretion to proceed with hearing as he did in this case but if the dfd had argued it more robustly I think he would have struck it out. It's definitely something you should bring to the judge's attention as a 'preliminary matter' Especially as they have not complied with 27.9 (1) (a) because the notice has to be 'served' on you (received by you) AT LEAST 7 days before the hearing.

Bear in mind that what we are discussing hear is non-attendance not RoA (separate issue).

So........ if the advocate has no RoA on Tuesday, the judge couldn't "take into account that party’s statement of case"??

If it is held that the rep has no RoA then he is not allowed to speak during the hearing (as if he wasn't even there) The judge can either hear the claimant's case on papers or strike out the claim - either way you will win.

If it is held that the claimant has not attended under cpr 27.9 (1) (c) then the judge can either strike it out or proceed (using his case management powers). If this comes up you should definitely push the judge to strike citing that this is a professionally represented serial litigant with their own in house lawyers and unlimited access to legal advice from qualified legal professionals - it is inexcusable for them not to comply with the CPRs. Their failure to do so is an abuse of process and contempt of court.

Loadsofchildren123

I think that part of R27 is for when nobody from the C is attending, not even an advocate, and the intention is to invite the court to deal with the matter on their papers alone. It doesn't apply if you send an advocate (provided of course the have RoA)

Loadsofchildren123

Poor Leigh doesn't understand the rules. Is he a solicitor or just an employee of BW? (I've not qualified).

Loadsofchildren123

Nothing wrong with that of course. It just might explain his buffoonery (but not the buffoonery of the person meant to be supervising him).

Loadsofchildren123

Point it out to them and make him doubt himself. Ask in a quizzical way what he means because R27x actually says ....and he appears to misunderstand it entirely.

Matthew87

Leigh's a solicitor:

http://solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk/person/272679/leigh-schelvis

Taken from BW's Website:
"Leigh Schelvis - Commercial Litigation Solicitor

Leigh is a solicitor of the Courts of England and Wales. He handles complex litigation and insolvency matters, acting for commercial clients, individuals and insolvency practitioners.

Originating from Australia, Leigh joined BW legal in November 2015 after training with a boutique litigation firm and qualifying at a national firm (both in Leeds) into contentious insolvency. Despite only recently qualifying, Leigh has a grounded technical legal knowledge and always approaches each case with a commercial and entrepreneurial mind with a real focus on delivering excellent client service.

Recent experience includes acting on numerous asset/vehicle finance matters and representing a high net worth individual in successfully recovering over £300,000 in respect of his client’s defective Lamborghini Aventador.

When Leigh is not working, he spends his spare time raising money for the Samaritans charity."

[Deleted User]

Said it once, I'll say it again. A fully qualified solicitor like a fully qualified barrister provides permitted legal services and will always have county court rights of audience.

The often referred to provisions of the LSA are exemptions for agents that do not have full rights of audience. They require supervision etc. Solicitors geographically close to courts commonly work as 'local agents' for other firms further afield. The two should not be confused...

If our chum chooses to send an unsupervised and unqualified 'advocate' that is his look out. Feel free to challenge them: I'm sure you will

beamerguy

Matthew87 wrote: »

Leigh's a solicitor:

http://solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk/person/272679/leigh-schelvis

Taken from BW's Website:
"Leigh Schelvis - Commercial Litigation Solicitor

Leigh is a solicitor of the Courts of England and Wales. He handles complex litigation and insolvency matters, acting for commercial clients, individuals and insolvency practitioners.

Originating from Australia, Leigh joined BW legal in November 2015 after training with a boutique litigation firm and qualifying at a national firm (both in Leeds) into contentious insolvency. Despite only recently qualifying, Leigh has a grounded technical legal knowledge and always approaches each case with a commercial and entrepreneurial mind with a real focus on delivering excellent client service.

Recent experience includes acting on numerous asset/vehicle finance matters and representing a high net worth individual in successfully recovering over £300,000 in respect of his client’s defective Lamborghini Aventador.

When Leigh is not working, he spends his spare time raising money for the Samaritans charity."

That well maybe but what on earth is he doing with BWLegal ?
Such qualifications should dictate he should be working for a top firm of solicitors not a firm who works for peanuts chasing so called £100 debts started by scammers ....... it's a joke
Leigh will not get rich on this lot

Samaritans ???? doubt his employers know what the word means and don't give a monkeys anyways.

It still amazes me how a firm like BWLegal continue to rubbish themselves by appearing on google so often ???

This is not a good CV for Leigh, not even a stepping stone.
Walk about Creek maybe more suitable