Small Claims Court Letter - N.Ireland.

MercurialNo.10

Adjourned - The PPC's legal people have to explain why they can pursue me under the rule of agency...something along those lines.

beamerguy

MercurialNo.10 wrote: »

Adjourned - The PPC's legal people have to explain why they can pursue me under the rule of agency...something along those lines.

Interesting, I may have missed it but who is the legal ??

paulstevens64

It sounds like they are attempting to use AJH Films?

OP can you find out if they are trying to say that you were "in charge" of the vehicle, so whoever parked you are responsible - they were acting as your agent. That is the premis of AJH Films, an employee was acting on the instructions of his employer (agent).

If this is the route they are pursuing, there are plenty of court cases here - so persuasive but not precedent, of AJH being thrown out in private cases, as the keeper is not the "agent" of the unknown driver on the day.

Paul

MercurialNo.10

Their company representatives were in court, not solicitors. Had 3 in Court including me, 2 settled...seems I'm the first to dispute in front of a (very nice and a very fair) judge. The specifics of the case are messy to say the least.

Adjourned for 12 weeks, does that mean their lawyers write (maybe) to the judge and try and explain this before a ruling?

I'm unsure if this is positive or not, the fact I've no other action to take is quite a weight off my shoulders. Stressful situation.

paulstevens64

Did you see their defence? Did it mention AJH and law of Agency?

MercurialNo.10

Nope. The judge was surprised (as was I) that they didn't have solicitors in Court.

Think they were expecting me to bend over and admit liability for something there is no proof of.

The law of agency thing came via telephone advice from a solicitor etc.

Castle

paulstevens64 wrote: »

If this is the route they are pursuing, there are plenty of court cases here - so persuasive but not precedent, of AJH being thrown out in private cases, as the keeper is not the "agent" of the unknown driver on the day.

Launchbury v Morgans from the House of Lords in 1972 would still be binding on Northern Ireland courts.

MercurialNo.10

Castle wrote: »

Launchbury v Morgans from the House of Lords in 1972 would still be binding on Northern Ireland courts.

The ruling being in my favour?

Castle

MercurialNo.10 wrote: »

The ruling being in my favour?

Yes...
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1972/5.html

System

60. In any event, vicarious liability cannot be fixed in this instance. The Defendant draws the Court’s attention to Launchbury v Morgans [1972] UKHL 5:

“For I regard it as clear that in order to fix vicarious liability upon the owner of a car in such a case as the present, it must be shown that the driver was using it for the owner's purposes, under delegation of a task or duty”

So the issues are narrow down to them proving this ... or just using the court to bully people. If you can, get lots of costs out of them. Judges have memories so this may be a legal "smash and grab" and you are an early victim. So the more you can queer their pitch, the better.