My Witness Statement is due

[Deleted User]

1. Unless the district judge (DJ) decides to mix it up asking a volley of questions, the running order would see the claimant present their case. Once their advocate has covered that, it's over to you. The DJ should have read your statement, so oral submissions are an opportunity to comment more expansively on your main arguments, not really to rehash verbatim. You can point to inaccuracies in claimants statement, but a line by line critique may not be permitted.

2. Provided the official copy establishes the name of the proprietor at the time of the alleged transgression I'd definitely try to get it in. The claimant comes to court without their witness denying you the right to cross examine. The official copy goes directly as to the credibility of the case and statement. Avoid any argument as to ambush. You would be strongly advised to hand a spare copy to the claimant advocate prior to the hearing (at about the same time you choose whether or not to pursue any RoA point).

3. Yes, your bundle of documents is possibly slightly smaller or raises arguments that may appear to be more straightforward. It's an estimate only, not a science. Plenty of forumites have had hearings last far less time.

ElParque

Johnersh wrote: »

2. Provided the official copy establishes the name of the proprietor at the time of the alleged transgression I'd definitely try to get it in. The claimant comes to court without their witness denying you the right to cross examine. The official copy goes directly as to the credibility of the case and statement. Avoid any argument as to ambush. You would be strongly advised to hand a spare copy to the claimant advocate prior to the hearing (at about the same time you choose whether or not to pursue any RoA point).

The official copy says 1 (08.08.2002) PROPRIETOR: BENJAMIN SEITLER and SANDRA SEITLER of 4 The Cottages, Deva Centre, Trinity Way, Manchester M3 7BE and MJF SSAS
TRUSTEES LIMITED (Co. Regn. No. 04089958) of 4 The Cottages, Deva
Centre, Trinity Way, Manchester M3 7BE , the Trustees of The RPI Pension Scheme.

Does the date on this paragraph mean that the proprietor was the proprietor from 8/8/2002?

I've decided not to challenge the Right of Audience. I don't understand the law in relation to this fully and my thinking is that the case should be quite simple to defend. I'm not trying to win 7-0. 1-0 will do. Even 2-1.

[Deleted User]

Certainly merit in your approach you don't want a DJ weary with your weaker arguments to become less tolerant of the stronger. Be prepared to adapt and move through your points when needed and you'll be fine.

Your reading is correct. Will be interesting to see if they do bring a contract as the statement looks thin - and that's even if it was signed by the correct personnel.

1-0 always used to be good enough for Arsenal

[Deleted User]

@ElParque Good luck today - May the 4th be with you! Seriously, let us know how you get on. I will try and check on the forum beforehand.

Madam/Sir are the correct titles for a DJ. If you are before Manasse, just for background, I note that he is a former barrister and has been a full time DJ since 2014.

The court usher who checks you in, should be your friend. Those guys don't miss a trick and will be able to point you in the direction of your opponent for a pre- hearing chat etc...

ElParque

Amber from elms is going to argue that AJH films isn't so narrow as to only apply to companies. HELP

xxxxxxxxxxxxx text me!!

[Deleted User]

See para 7 of the Court of Appeal judgment. Although the Defendant failed, it was specifically noted that the case turned on its own facts - it does not set any general authority
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/1453.html

The whole purpose of parliament creating POFA was to allow driver liability to transfer to the RK in limited circumstances. If parliament had intended RK liability to apply in all circumstances it would have said so in the legislation and not limited the circumstances. In France, for example, liability is always with the RK.

Amber is wrong.

System

Amber is wrong.

If you had challenged the RoA you would be able to say that if she was supervised by a real lawyer, she wouldn't make such false statements.

safarmuk

Just seen this - hope it goes well ElParque.

As far as I understand it the AJH Films case was specific to an employer and an employee situation and could be applied in the situation where a company or fleet car attracted a PCN and the employing company refused to name the driver.

However your case is not the same as this and AJH Films case should be deemed irrelevant (as it has been in previous cases). It also as Johnersh says above "turned on its own facts"

IMO as you are not a company, employer or fleet manager if the PPC want to pursue you as the RK then they need to ensure they have followed POFA.

Let us know how you get on.

[Deleted User]

@IamEmanresu indeed the RoA point if successful would end a hearing before it begins, but if you are not on top of/comfortable with your arguments you are unlikely to make them stick. That applies to any point of law.

At that point you just look like you'll throw any point into the mix - however good or bad it is. It damages the better arguments that you have.

In this instance, I think Elparque took the right approach. Hopefully his other points are robust.

ElParque

Just back from court. I'll post more detail later but I won and got £97 costs.

Quick points

The DJ Manasse was excellent. He made some of the points for me, particularly the one against AJH Films. He knew about POFA.

I was 'grilled' by the Elms rep. She tried to get me to tell her who was driving. I admitted it was one of my kids but I just said I'm not telling!

This experience leads me to some conclusions about cases like mine.. Pre POFA ones, that is but, of that, more later.

MASSIVE thanks to the clever, caring and knowledgeable people on here; especially to Lamilad, (even though he shouted at me) and Johnersh who was my MVP! Responding to me by text was beyond the call of duty! That was so kind. I'm guessing you must be a solicitor or probably a barrister? If you are I'm keeping your number in case I ever need proper representation!

<and relax....>