3 years between PCN and Court presence demanded

Thorsson

Quentin wrote: »

See #27. .

I did. I missed the significance and possibly still do. Is that saying that a Judge, if they read the defence and decide that there is "no Defence", can strike it out without further ado?

System

Is that saying that a Judge, if they read the defence and decide that there is "no Defence", can strike it out without further ado?

The judge's explanation is there too. He or she used Part 3 and to answer Coupon's implied question - balance of probabilities.

And with regards to Coupon's other comment - good spot. It had me fooled.

nosferatu1001

Thorsson wrote: »

I did. I missed the significance and possibly still do. Is that saying that a Judge, if they read the defence and decide that there is "no Defence", can strike it out without further ado?

Yes, thats exactly what it means.
This is before the hearing. This is to decide whether the Court should spend its time on a hearing or not.

Quentin

Thorsson wrote: »

I did. I missed the significance and possibly still do. Is that saying that a Judge, if they read the defence and decide that there is "no Defence", can strike it out without further ado?

Yes .


See #27

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

the Judge read your defence, and decided it contained no Defence to the Claim. ....

Thorsson

Thanks all. I get it now; does this happen often?

Coupon-mad

IamEmanresu wrote: »

And with regards to Coupon's other comment - good spot. It had me fooled.

It never had me fooled.

Wow the post count can be bumped up high quickly, when a person tries hard & keeps replying.

nosferatu1001

So, back to the OP: Surely, given this was made without a hearing, you have 7 days to object?
Yes
or
No

The clue will be on the order.

Loadsofchildren123

The judge has the power to strike out for want of a valid defence under the inherent case management powers set out in the CPR Rule 3.3. I have set out below the relevant part of 3.3.


(4) The court may make an order of its own initiative, without hearing the parties or giving them an opportunity to make representations.
(5) Where the court has made an order under paragraph (4);
(a) a party affected by the order may apply to have it set aside, varied or stayed; and
(b) the order must contain a statement of the right to make such an application.
(6) An application under paragraph (5)(a) must be made;
(a) within such period as may be specified by the court; or
(b) if the court does not specify a period, not more than 7 days after the date on which the order was served on the party making the application.


So, under 3.3(5) you can apply to set aside, vary or stay (suspend) the order. You need to apply to set it aside. Under (5)(b) the order must tell you that you can make that application - there is usually some wording on it at the end of an order like this saying that because it's been made that way either party can apply within x days.


So what does your order say? Please read it from top to bottom.


If there is no such wording, that is quite a serious matter because the court has failed to inform you of your rights and has itself breached rule 3.3(5)(b).


If there is that wording, then what time limit does it give you to set aside? If none, then you've got 7 days from service of the order.


If you are within that timing, then you can apply.


You apply on a N244 application form which you can get and fill in online. The fee is £255 if you want a hearing, £100 if you ask the court to deal with it on paper.


It seems to me that your defences are sufficiently stated to require a hearing of them, they are not so weak as to justify a strikeout. For instance, you've said they can't prove you were driving and deny liability as RK. That alone is a sufficient issue to require a decision.


In the N244 you have to say why you are applying and what evidence you rely on. This needs to be a carefully worded letter basically stating the above.


What's the time limit in the order for applying?


If the order is silent, write immediately to the court and ask why the required wording under R3.3(5)(b) was absent from the order and point out that you are a litigant in person and the wording should have been there, and can the court please explain why it was not. Say you want to challenge the order.


You need to ask the court to stay the order pending your application, as Johnersh said at post #27, under 3.3(5)(a)

System

It seems to me that your defences are sufficiently stated to require a hearing of them

Not sure you can say that as the OP has never stated the particulars nor have they come back to say what the Claimant has claimed. All there is is a standard template a judge may have seen before and possibly being applied to a location/sequence of events they have seen before.

Are you suggesting the OP pays £255 without telling us what it was all about?

Loadsofchildren123

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Not sure you can say that as the OP has never stated the particulars nor have they come back to say what the Claimant has claimed. All there is is a standard template a judge may have seen before and possibly being applied to a location/sequence of events they have seen before.

Are you suggesting the OP pays £255 without telling us what it was all about?

Was assuming that the defence was as per posts #7 and 16. If it wasn't then obviously we'd need to see it. If it was, then my previous post applies.
If this was the defence, it is very odd that it's been summarily adjudged under R3 without the Claimant even asking for that.