Making an application to the County Court for an Order under the CPR rules

Jinxycat

Hi all,

Your advice would be appreciated please. I have a separate thread on this board about defending a parking ticket claim by Gstones:
forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5587819

I haven't seen any guidance on any forums about how you can make an application to the Court to strike out the claim under CPR rules 3.4(2) and 24.2. I am determined to do so, but I want to follow procedure to ensure it is filed properly and considered.

Has anyone done this please, and can they advise me on the wording of the application to the Court, and the wording of the application notice, which needs to be served on the Claimant?

I've drafted the following for the application to the Court:
"CLAIM NUMBER: [redacted]
BETWEEN: [redacted]
FULL NAME OF LITIGANT AND ADDRESS: [redacted]

Dear Sir/Madam,

APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER UNDER CPR RULE 3.4(2) AND RULE 24.2.

I am writing to submit an application for an order under CPR Rule 3.4(2) and Rule 24.2. I request that the application is dealt with by a hearing at my local court.

Order under CPR Rule 3.4(2).

I invite the court to strike out the whole of the statement of case for disclosing no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending a claim (rule 3.4(2)(a)).

The Claimant has not set out a clear and concise statement of the nature of his claim as required by CPR 16.4(1)(a). The particulars of claim do not disclose reasonable grounds or a cause of action for bringing a claim. Practice Direction 16 7.5 states that ‘where a claim is based upon an agreement by conduct, the particulars of claim must specify the conduct relied on and state by whom, when and where the acts constituting the conduct were done.’

Practice Direction 3A 1.4 provides examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of claim fall within Rule 3.4(2)(a):

‘(1) those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £5000’,
(2) those which are incoherent and make no sense,
(3) those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant.’

I invite the court to strike out the case for an abuse of the process of the court (rule 3.4(2)(b).

The claim is ill-founded. The Claimant's solicitor is a serial issuer of particulars of claim which arise from an automated template. The Claimant's conduct in pursuing consumers through the small claims track, using an automated system, is an abuse of the process of the court. It is against the public interest and I contend is therefore not something the courts should be seen to support.

Evidence

The Particulars of Claim are as follows:
‘-- DATE – DESCRIPTION -- AMOUNT --DUE DATE
[redacted]
Total due - £150
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
The Claimant claims the sum of £154.21 for
Parking charges and indemnity costs if
applicable including £4.21 interest pursuant
to S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 Rate
8.00% pa from dates above to 01/12/2016
Same rate to Judgment or (sooner) payment
Daily rate to Judgment £0.03
Total debt and interest £154.21’

The Claimant’s solicitor has not stated on the claim form that particulars of claim will follow (Practice Direction 16 3.3).

I wrote to the Claimant’s solicitor on [redacted], [redacted], and on [redacted] with a Part 18 Request, to clarify issues but the Claimant and their solicitors declined to respond to the requests with a compliant response.

In C3GF84Y (Mason, Plymouth County Court), the judge struck out the claim brought by KBT Cornwall Ltd as Gladstones Solicitors had not submitted proper Particulars of Claim, and similar reasons were cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR 16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

The particulars of claim in this case are legally unrecognisable (per Mr Justice Mostyn in Dellal -v- Dellal [2015] EWHC 907 (Fam)), are incoherent and make no sense.

Order under CPR Rule 24.2.

I invite the court to give summary judgement against the claimant for having no prospect of success and being bound to fail because of a point of law (CPR Rule 24.2).

I am the keeper of the vehicle [redacted], to which the claim relates. The terms of the parking contract provide for driver liability, and a ‘notice to driver’ was served. However, I did not wish to, and was under no legal obligation to, provide the name of the driver to the Claimant.

Not having received an admission as to who was driving, the Claimant has not thereafter acquired any right to pursue me in my capacity as registered keeper of the vehicle. Keeper liability has not passed in accordance with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Schedule 4 paragraphs 8(5) or 9(5) of the Act specify the time limits for serving a Notice to Keeper.

Evidence

The date of the alleged Parking Charge Notice was [redacted]; to comply the latest date of which the Notice to Keeper should have been sent was [redacted]. A Notice to Keeper has not been served. Furthermore, the Defendant has received confirmation from the Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency that it has never released any information regarding a parking charge on the Defendant’s vehicle.

In Dellal -v- Dellal [2015] EWHC 907 (Fam) Mr Justice Mostyn (at 24), applied the test in Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91: "The words 'no real prospect of succeeding' do not need any amplification, they speak for themselves. The word "real" distinguishes fanciful prospects of success or ... they direct the court to the need to see whether there is a "realistic" as opposed to a "fanciful" prospect of success."

In Easy Air Limited v Opal Telecom Limited [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch), Lewison J (at 15) clarified that: “A “realistic” claim is one that carries some degree of conviction. This means that a claim is more than merely arguable.

The Claimant will not be able to add to or alter the evidence in this regard, and therefore the case should not proceed further (per Royal Brompton NHS Trust v Hammond (No 5) [2001] EWCA Civ 550).

Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this application are true."

catfunt

Best to post this in your original thread. That is the usual way it is done on here.

That way
- it keeps the forum tidy
- It means that you get the right help as all your questions are put in proper context.

It takes much longer and is difficult if we have to keep jumping around different threads.

One case - one thread.