County Court Situation

bris

Bottom line, you tell a judge you know the law better than him/her then you're getting the book thrown at you. That's pretty much what you done.

Fosterdog

If you owed somebody £90 why did you not just pay them instead of making them sue you? Judges often look down on claims for small amounts and in this case it looks like the judge wanted to make an example of you, the £90 that you could have paid them to settle has turned into a much bigger penalty. Whether it was the small amount, the nature of the claim, something about you/your attitude, or just the judge having a bad day none of us know but he must have had his reasons for going against you.

It sounds like you may well have a case to get some of the expenses dropped from the debt but as already advised, you would be better off going through Legal Beagles for a better understanding and help with it.

KeithP

steampowered wrote: »

The rules are very clear that the maximum that can be awarded in costs for loss of earnings in small claims track is £95 per day.

But as I said earlier, there are exceptions.

See CPR 27.14(2)(g).

BobaFettt

bris wrote: »

Bottom line, you tell a judge you know the law better than him/her then you're getting the book thrown at you. That's pretty much what you done.

What the judge did is should be absolutely illegal, let's not justify it. I'll be making a formal complaint against him as well as appealing his "judgement".

Deastons

BobaFettt wrote: »

What the judge did is should be absolutely illegal, let's not justify it. I'll be making a formal complaint against him as well as appealing his "judgement".

Or it was a genuine mistake. If you had perhaps been a little too vocal during the hearing and he had to be firm with you, he may have been quick to dismiss you when you were making a valid point about him adding the fees twice.

I think I'm right in saying the whole point of a judge is that they don't allow their personal feelings to cloud their judgement, so if he did it on purpose, I'm sure it is illegal. But I suspect it was a genuine error that will quickly be rectified with a letter to the court.

steampowered

Just to clarify some of the above posts, the £19 per hour concept is not related to the £95 loss of earnings concept.

Loss of earnings for attending the hearing can always be claimed in SCT under CPR 27.14(2)(e), up to £95.

It is not necessary to prove unreasonable behaviour to claim this. Nor does the CPR require the judge to see proof (though most judges would ask). Nor is there any requirement to prove hours spent - this has nothing to do with the £19 per hour concept.

Time costs for time spent on the case can only be claimed in SCT under CPR 27.14(2)(g), which allows the court to award 'such
further costs as the court may assess by the summary procedure and order to be paid by a party who has behaved unreasonably'.

This is where the £19 per hour concept is relevant - as that is the 'litigant in person rate' for time spent on legal cases. Such costs are rarely awarded in SCT.

BobaFettt wrote: »

No, the claimant has made it very clear that the £350 was just for the day.

Very odd.

I wonder if the judge's logic was that the £350 was awarded under CPR 27.14(g), on the basis that you behaved unreasonably. That award does sound very open to challenge to me though.

Doesn't the appeal cost £1199? That's a huge risk to take.

The cost of appealing from SCT is £120. See court form EX50 which lists the fees.

The £1,199 is the cost for appealing to the Court of Appeal. That would be the second appeal, if you appealed again after losing the first appeal.

Honestly, while it sounds like you do have a good case for appealing, I'm not sure it is worth the court fee and bother for the sake of £350.

John-K_3

BobaFettt wrote: »

What the judge did is should be absolutely illegal, let's not justify it. I'll be making a formal complaint against him as well as appealing his "judgement".

Is should be?

I do not know if you are right, but it sounds like you were in the wrong, and that you turned up with an awful attitude. While you may hope that this latter point does not matter, judges are human, and if you are both guilty and a !!!! then you have to expect to end up unhappy.

BobaFettt

John-K wrote: »

Judges are human, and if you are both guilty and a !!!! then you have to expect to end up unhappy.

Yes, but shouldn't they remain impartial and avoid getting personal regardless of the situation? You're making an assumption about me being guilty and a !!!!, but even if that was the case, it still doesn't justify an unfair judgement!

BobaFettt

steampowered wrote: »

Honestly, while it sounds like you do have a good case for appealing, I'm not sure it is worth the court fee and bother for the sake of £350.

Thanks for your very informative response. If I were to appeal and pay the extra £120, would it be possible that the judge may award any further fees or costs to the claimant again?

steampowered

BobaFettt wrote: »

Thanks for your very informative response. If I were to appeal and pay the extra £120, would it be possible that the judge may award any further fees or costs to the claimant again?

The first stage would be to apply for permission to appeal. There shouldn't be costs for seeking the permission.

But if you get permission and the Defendant has to go to a hearing, and your appeal ends up being unsuccessful, unfortunately there is a possibility of further costs being awarded.