This is a tough one!

henrik777

Well you won, but the judge hasn't covered themselves in glory.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part27/pd_part27#7.1

7.3 The amounts which a party may be ordered to pay under rule 27.14(3)(c) (loss of earnings) and (d) (experts’ fees) are:

(1) for the loss of earnings or loss of leave of each party or witness due to attending a hearing or staying away from home for the purpose of attending a hearing, a sum not exceeding £95 per day for each person

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part27#27.2

Extent to which other Parts apply

27.2

(1) The following Parts of these Rules do not apply to small claims –

(a) Part 25 (interim remedies) except as it relates to interim injunctions(GL);

(b) Part 31 (disclosure and inspection);

(c) Part 32 (evidence) except rule 32.1 (power of court to control evidence);

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part32#32.1

Power of court to control evidence

32.1

(1) The court may control the evidence by giving directions as to –

(a) the issues on which it requires evidence;

(b) the nature of the evidence which it requires to decide those issues; and

(c) the way in which the evidence is to be placed before the court.

(2) The court may use its power under this rule to exclude evidence that would otherwise be admissible.

(3) The court may limit cross-examination

Normally there are no orders under 32.1 and i'd say it's highly unfair to impose any restrictions afterwards. Although to be fair, most PPC witness statements are not even loosely  witness statement. If i was to put a big whopper in a big mac box it wouldn't be a big mac.

Blazkowicz

Loss of leave...

Well damn. I was concerned when she was surprised that I asked for costs to be awarded. She seemed to respond as if the win should be enough and I was being smug.

Umkomaas

Wonderful report and an excellent result. A good point for further cases where a remote paralegal is signing statements of truth which are far from it, particularly when they likely have no personal knowledge of anything that happened at the time - often many years previously. 

henrik777

Umkomaas said:

Wonderful report and an excellent result. A good point for further cases where a remote paralegal is signing statements of truth which are far from it, particularly when they likely have no personal knowledge of anything that happened at the time - often many years previously. 

New rule on that very soon.

‘I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.”.


However i'm very sceptical anyone will give a toss.

Le_Kirk

Well done on the win, shame about the costs.  Great report, lovely reading.  The Abuse of Process was never meant to be a defence point, it is all about limiting the amount of costs you might be exposed to in the unlikely event that you lost!

beamerguy

Hey, WELL DONE, a very professional court report

 He said we were "on the same page shall we say" and then "I’m not sure how long they will be able to continue bringing cases like this before the courts.". 

That is interesting and indeed BWLegal should now be sanctioned for there false claims and rubbish

Similar to a Gladstones nonsense claim where  .......
The rep sent by Gladstones admitted to the judge that the fake add-ons WERE FALSE

The WS from BWLegal have not only been flawed it is has been proven that they attempt to hide important matters to the court as shown here
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6008854/britania-parking-pcn-bournemouth/p1

You must now complain to the SRA giving the facts of this case

beamerguy

henrik777 said:

Umkomaas said:

Wonderful report and an excellent result. A good point for further cases where a remote paralegal is signing statements of truth which are far from it, particularly when they likely have no personal knowledge of anything that happened at the time - often many years previously. 

New rule on that very soon.

‘I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.”.


However i'm very sceptical anyone will give a toss.

But this can be used in reply to a letter before claim

Where does this come from

Castle

Changes are coming on 6th April-
https://www.dacbeachcroft.com/en/gb/articles/2020/march/amendments-to-the-civil-procedure-rules-bring-mandatory-changes-to-statements-of-truth/

beamerguy

Castle said:

Changes are coming on 6th April-
https://www.dacbeachcroft.com/en/gb/articles/2020/march/amendments-to-the-civil-procedure-rules-bring-mandatory-changes-to-statements-of-truth/

Thank you Castle ....... that should knock the fake £60 on the head and infact the claims by legals that they know nothing about

Castle

You never know; the "witness" may actually have to read their statements before they "sign" them now.