CEL county court

Loadsofchildren123

No difference, just remove the word "further"
The intention of the order must have been for them to particularise their claim properly because the first PoC were so brief as to be incoherent (which is always the case and the courts only occasionally rise to it).

geordiejoiner

@Loadsofchildren123 should i also enclose the particulars of my defense aswel just incase they don't strike it out?

Loadsofchildren123

but if the "new" pocs are the same as the "old" ones, do you want to amend your defence? Or have you seen things in it that you'd like the chance to change?
I think if you amend it, it makes a nonsense of your complaint that you can't properly defend.


I'd add to the letter "My Amended Defence is due to be filed on x date. Clearly, until the Particulars are filed in accordance with the Order, I cannot be expected to file an Amended Defence and I ask for a general extension of time until this issue has been resolved".


Say at the end that you have sent a copy of the letter to the Claimant (and do that).

logician

geordiejoiner wrote: »

@loadsofchildren123 on the order it says for them to submit POC not to submit further POC. Would that make a difference? But yeh it's not dated correctly

Yes it could do - this is a common order where particulars of claim have been issued separately and it is likely the judge has not seen these.

CPR 6.3

6.3 The claimant must file the particulars of claim at the court to which the proceedings are sent under paragraph 12.1 or 12.2 within 7 days of service of the notice of transfer by the court.

Where additional particulars of claim are served, there is no requirement to file these with CCBC unless ordered to, they need to be filed with the court after transfer.


PS received a similar order once before personally when issuing proceedings and separate particulars of claim followed even though the CCBC failed to pass those over.

[Deleted User]

Yes it could do - this is a common order where particulars of claim have been issued separately and it is likely the judge has not seen these.

It is conceivably possible that no certificate of service was lodged so the Court did not see the Particulars, hence a further copy was sent to you. With that, I agree.

However, I disagree with Logician's next point:

Where additional particulars of claim are served, there is no requirement to file these with CCBC unless ordered to, they need to be filed with the court after transfer.

That is nonsense. The CPR is clear and the MCOL user guide is unequivocal:

Serving Additional Particulars of Claim
If during step 5 of issuing the claim you state that you will serve additional Particulars of Claim, you
must send the additional particulars to the defendant(s) within 14 days of your claim being
issued. You should also send a covering letter to the defendant clearly advising that these are the
extra particulars referred to in your claim form and quote the claim number.

You must file an ‘N215 Certificate of Service’ with the court within 14 days of the claim being issued. The certificate of service confirms to the court that you have sent the documents to the defendant. The certificate can be filed by post or preferably by email to ccbc@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk .

The Claim needs both Particulars and Defence to be allocated. It cannot be allocated without them and in the absence of an application.

logician

@ Jonersh I think you are misunderstanding my post in particular to PD for MCOL claims

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part07/pd_part07e


Particulars of claim and certificate of service
6.1 Where the particulars of claim are served by the claimant separately from the claim form pursuant to paragraph 5.2(2), the claimant must –
(1) serve the particulars of claim in accordance with rule 7.4(1)(b); and
(2) file a certificate of service in form N215 at the County Court Business Centre within 14 days of service of the particulars of claim on the defendant.
6.2 The certificate of service may be filed by sending form N215 by email to mcolaos@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk. However, the subject line to the e-mail must contain the claim number.
6.3 The claimant must file the particulars of claim at the court to which the proceedings are sent under paragraph 12.1 or 12.2 within 7 days of service of the notice of transfer by the court.
6.4 Where the proceedings are not sent to a County Court hearing centre under paragraph 12.1 or 12.2 and remain at the County Court Business Centre, the claimant is not required to file the particulars of claim unless ordered to do so.

[Deleted User]

@logician err...ok. And your point being? Let's dissect that shall we?

.1 Where the particulars of claim are served by the claimant separately from the claim form pursuant to paragraph 5.2(2), the claimant must

–
The imperative. Not optional.

serve the particulars of claim in accordance with rule 7.4(1)(b); and
(2) file a certificate of service in form N215 at the County Court Business Centre within 14 days of service of the particulars of claim on the defendant.
6.2 The certificate of service may be filed by sending form N215 by email to mcolaos@hmcourts-service.gsi.gov.uk. However, the subject line to the e-mail must contain the claim number.

Serve particulars and By post or email, send to the court a certificate of service

Good. Still with me?

6.3 The claimant must file the particulars of claim at the court to which the proceedings are sent under paragraph 12.1 or 12.2 within 7 days of service of the notice of transfer by the court.

the proceedings will get transferred to the defendants home court, so the Claimant has to send a further copy of that certificate of service to the new court if the defendant is applying to set aside or either party makes an application

6.4 Where the proceedings are not sent to a County Court hearing centre under paragraph 12.1 or 12.2 and remain at the County Court Business Centre, the claimant is not required to file the particulars of claim unless ordered to do so.

No doubt because he has already filed the certificate of service and the new court in a defended claim doesn't need a further copy. Funnily enough.

Feel free to disagree if you wish. But it's tiresome tbh.

[Deleted User]

On a separate point, the commentary in the 2017 White Book (CPR) contains a delightful note to practitioners saying that this nonsense would all be much more straightforward if the MCOL software simply allowed parties to draft longer pleadings - rather than have poor pleadings or supplemental particulars! Comedy.
:rotfl:

logician

geordiejoiner wrote: »

https://imgur.com/dMxgddy

Johnersh wrote: »

Hang on. The Claimant was ordered to serve further and better particulars and has lodged a statement saying the same thing. I don't think so. More likely is that the first set of Particulars are 1 sentence long on the claim form and the second set are contained in the separate document you have posted above.

No the order was not to strike out the original particulars of claim or to file and serve better particulars. The order was simply that the Claimant needed to file and serve "full particulars of claim". (hence why the court has probably not seen them). That order was issued on 13.09.17

The court appears to have accepted those as a further order has been sent to the OP dated October that the OP needs to file his defence within 21 days.

geordiejoiner wrote: »

https://imgur.com/a/JV5Qa

that should be it, learn something new every day!

[Deleted User]

“
Hang on. The Claimant was ordered to serve further and better particulars and has lodged a statement saying the same thing. I don't think so. More likely is that the first set of Particulars are 1 sentence long on the claim form and the second set are contained in the separate document you have posted above.
Originally posted by Johnersh


”No the order was not to strike out the original particulars of claim or to file and serve better particulars. The order was simply that the Claimant needed to file and serve "full particulars of claim". (hence why the court has probably not seen them). That order was issued on 13.09.17
originally posted by logician

I don't think these comments are inconsistent.
FWIW I have never said the order was to strike. I said that most likely the order was made in response to the short form wording on the claim form. I make clear that the court would not have asked for or the same document to be served twice.

What we have is semantics. Implicit in the wording "full Particulars" is the fact that court has received an abbreviated form. I'm not sure my phrase "further and better particulars" means anything different on a plain English interpretation.

As an aside I think we're agreed both as to why the order was made and the reason for it. I will however take issue with your suggestion that I'm incorrect.