my draft defence Gladstones - PCM Court action

Sassii

Struck out order
https://www.keepandshare.com/doc16/20465/epson037-pdf-28k?da=y

Cost award order
https://www.keepandshare.com/doc16/20466/epson036-pdf-23k?da=y

Set aside dismissed order

https://www.keepandshare.com/doc16/20464/epson038-pdf-14k?da=y

Johnersh wrote: »

1. What is the order that they are appealing against?.

They appealed against the set aside dismissed order on 04/01/2018

Johnersh wrote: »

They specifically state the 04/01/18 order is appealed (and nothing else), so what exactly does that say?

as the 3rd link above and they also appealed on behalf of myself for my costs application

Johnersh wrote: »

2. If I'm correct at (1) above (and that's a big IF) then in principle, the appeal is limited to the costs issues, not the strike out of their case as (i) their set aside application never sought to challenge the strike out (ii) the court never reinstated the claim (iii) they are out of time to challenge the ORIGINAL order, namely the strike out.

It appears as if the Claimant seeks to use the costs hearing/issues as a "back door" to reinstate the claim. Without seeing the order it's tricky to fully understand the position.

you are right and they tried to reinstate the claim in the set aside hearing but the judge shut them down and told them you just asking to set aside the costs order dated 18/09/2017.

Johnersh wrote: »

You should know that the PPC is technically correct (albeit that they don't make the point well) that they should have had more time/notification before the costs hearing in September.

They used words like clear dates & business dates which I think it has no weigh as the law state only dates not working dates, am I correct?.

[Deleted User]

So it appears based on what you say, that Gladstones are still arguing the merits of the claim when they have no proper basis to do that and are out of time to appeal the strike out. Interesting.

They are in my view (and for what that's worth) stuffed on that. I think only the costs should be in play.

The CPR requires that all days should be clear days. There may be an argument that the court truncated the time as the CPR also states 'unless the court orders otherwise' read the sections of the CPR referred to by the parking company.

logician

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

By the way, an appeal does NOT stand as a stay (ie suspension) of the original order. The order under appeal is still enforceable. So unless they've applied for a stay, you are entitled to receive those costs.

Unfortunately, they have applied for the stay in the paperwork.

Johnersh wrote: »

Jeepers! That form looks as though it was filled in by a 3 y.o. with some Crayolas. It is also a farrago of citations, dates and hearings.


They specifically state the 04/01/18 order is appealed (and nothing else), so what exactly does that say?

2. If I'm correct at (1) above (and that's a big IF) then in principle, the appeal is limited to the costs issues, not the strike out of their case as (i) their set aside application never sought to challenge the strike out (ii) the court never reinstated the claim (iii) they are out of time to challenge the ORIGINAL order, namely the strike out.

It appears as if the Claimant seeks to use the costs hearing/issues as a "back door" to reinstate the claim. Without seeing the order it's tricky to fully understand the position.

In any case, you need to prepare a skeleton argument and file it asap in response.

You should know that the PPC is technically correct (albeit that they don't make the point well) that they should have had more time/notification before the costs hearing in September. However, that disregards the points raised above.

Yes the form is a shambles with the handwritten dates inserted.

It does look as if they are just appealing the set aside application on the basis that:

Layman speak below:

a) They did not receive D's letter of 05/09/2017

b) They maintain the application for payment of the original hearing fee was correct given the authority provided via email

c) If, no hearing fee had been received, then why did a costs only hearing go ahead.

d) After strike out, insufficient time notification received for costs only hearing.

Coupon-mad

Johnersh wrote: »

So it appears based on what you say, that Gladstones are still arguing the merits of the claim when they have no proper basis to do that and are out of time to appeal the strike out. Interesting.

They are in my view (and for what that's worth) stuffed on that. I think only the costs should be in play.

The CPR requires that all days should be clear days. There may be an argument that the court truncated the time as the CPR also states 'unless the court orders otherwise' read the sections of the CPR referred to by the parking company.

Take Johnersh's advice. He's legally qualified.

Sassii

Below is the skeleton argument would like to file to court, It's highly appreciated if you please review it

Coupon-mad

(5) The Defendant [STRIKE]want[/STRIKE] wishes to bring to the court's attention

This part needs re-writing, as the English isn't quite right (don't use shortened slang like 'didn't' for 'did not', and '1st' should be written in full: 'first'. Also 'confessed' should be 'admitted':

(7) As the Appellant didn't ask to set aside or to appeal the 1st court order, although he had the time to do so and that time run out, he confessed that the Defendant didn't owe any money to him so there was no case from beginning and he confessed that the court trial fees didn't pay on time.

[Deleted User]

Deleted as requested by the o/p (I'm nice like that)

Sassii

Johnersh wrote: »

Deleted as requested by the o/p (I'm nice like that)

Thanks Johnersh

Sassii

Hi all

Court cover letter came with pcm appeal invite me to file a respondent's notice N162. link below

https://www.keepandshare.com/doc16/20484/epson039-pdf-15k?da=y

Could you please guide me how to fill N162 form as it looks for me it's for appellant not for defendant.

Regards

[Deleted User]

The N162 is designed to deal with both the response to an appeal and also (if so required) a cross-appeal. You are not required to appeal any element of the order if you don't wish to.

Hypothetical example (this is not your case, but for explanation only):
1. C loses his case and D wins, but D gets only his normal costs.
2. C appeals on the basis of an error of fact or law, contending that D should have lost.
3. D prepares a response to uphold the order that gives him the win, but cross-appeals on the basis that the costs order was wrong and he should get unreasonable costs.

It's a matter for you as to your arguments (I don't tell anyone what their case should be), but you may well be content with sticking with the order you've got, so can complete the section relating to the upholding of the order. You can prepare a separate skelly and lodge it with the form (in addition) if that is easier.