Does Small Claims Court have to make it clear if they reject my Amended Particulars of Claim form?

DoaM

A McKenzie friend shouldn't even be communicating - everything should be from the named party (defendant in this case). If it got to a court hearing the solicitor wouldn't even be allowed to speak (unless he identified himself as a Lay Rep).

unholyangel

waamo wrote: »

If this is the initial particulars they are supposed to be concise. You expand on them later. A single paragraph is plenty. It should usually be done in a few lines with the total value claimed.

Something along the lines of "Cost of repairs following damage to wall" followed by the amount is enough for say a building issue.

It really should be kept as simple as that. The fact there is bullet points and a chronology suggests it's not simple. You lay those facts out slightly later usually.

Nothing the OP said suggested they were lengthy though, just too complicated for the defendant to comprehend.

October868 wrote: »

My reason for panicking last-night was that the legal representative of the defendant (he's a qualified solicitor, but is not actually representing her, merely supporting her in a non-speaking capacity in the court-room), emailed me/the court directly insinuating that the court had deemed my Amended Particulars of Claim form as being unsatisfactory, and thus that my claim had been stuck-out by the court.

That alone was enough to clue me into the fact he's a mackenzie friend. I also suspect he is either not legally trained or that he's been disqualified. A professional solicitor would not act or react in such a manner.

You don't have a dog and bark yourself. Most likely a friend who thinks they know the law and really doesn't. Even more likely with the response they've given. If you ever !!!! up, never expect the opposing sides legal counsel to clue you into the fact. At least not if they're effective legal counsel.

waamo

unholyangel wrote: »

Nothing the OP said suggested they were lengthy though, just too complicated for the defendant to comprehend.

I must admit I'm rather surprised at the judges decision to ask for more concise particulars.

I'm even more surprised a set aside was granted given the story though. I know of far more deserving applications rejected.