OPS/Gladstones claim to be heard at Guildford County Court

NotanotherPPCscam

Great, thanks Coupon-mad. I'd already used bargepoles's wording re consolidation of the claims in both defences, but have mirrored that wording in my Witness Statement and will also add it in a covering letter to the DDJ who issued the Notice of Allocation.

I'll also add in the trespass wording and expand the abuse of process piece to include all your paras from #14. How is it best to link the WS and the Supplementary WS - have the abuse of process argument outlined as I have done in para 2 and cross-refer to the Supplementary WS at that point?

Coupon-mad

I searched your WS draft for the words 'substantially' and then 'Henderson' and as neither are there, I can't see that you used bargepole's recommended words about consolidating cases?

NotanotherPPCscam

Sorry Coupon-mad - I have updated in my WS since the one posted earlier today, but not reposted it on here (mainly as I have now put in all the personal details that I had previously taken out).

I used the following wording suggested by you on another thread (in both my defence submitted a few weeks ago and in my updated WS).

"The Court is invited to take note that the Claimant has issued two claims, numbers XXXXX and YYYYY, against the Defendant on the same date, with identical Particulars of Claim. It is submitted that this constitutes an abuse of process, making the Defendant potentially liable for two instances of issue fees, solicitor costs, and hearing fees, and runs contrary to the overriding objective of CPR 1.1, the disposal of cases justly and at proportionate cost. The Court is invited to consolidate the claims to be determined at a single hearing, and to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimant."

This doesn't mention Henderson though, so I'm missing something? Will go have a search for bargepole's original post.

NotanotherPPCscam

Found bargepole's original post referncing Henderson v Henderson but his wording relates to a situation where the first of the two claims has already been struck out (and he is writing to Gladstones to strongly suggest they discontinue the second claim). I think your wording is therefore better for the WS, although I will refer to Henderson v Henderson and Johnston v Gore Wood in the cover letter to the DDJ.

Thanks again for all your help today.

NotanotherPPCscam

Neatly bound and indexed Witness Statement, supplementary witness statement and Exhibits (appropriately highlighted to draw out key points for Judge) all lodged with County Court this morning, together with a cover letter to the DDJ requesting consolidation of the two claims for a single hearing.

Also got a letter on Tuesday advising that the hearing date has been set for late March. No Court bundle received from Gladstones yet (deadline is 4pm today) although have sent mine to them.

Coupon-mad

Very good! I expect the court to consolidate them soon then, hope so.

nosferatu1001

Once theyre past the deadline:

1) Call the court, see if they have sent one to the court
2) Either way, inform the court you do not have a copy of the Cs bundle, and you would like this noted on the file for the Judge. As they are professionally represented, they have no excuse for this and you ask that the court allows no relief from sanctions.

NotanotherPPCscam

Not sure whether to laugh or cry...

...having effectively taken half a day off work to go down to Guildford and file my Court bundle (not helped by both SW Trains and Southern having a meltdown this morning), I got home from work tonight to find a letter from Gladstones dated yesterday with a copy of a Notice of Discontinuance for the first claim (the one where the deadline for Court bundle was 4pm today). Maybe that SRA investigation is starting to bite...?

Coupon-mad (or anyone else) - what's the best approach to

a) ask for costs (on the indemnity basis) - they hadn't seen my WS (only emailed to them this afternoon) so nothing new on this claim since I filed my defence more than two months ago. Therefore them deciding to discontinue at the last possible minute is more unprofessional and vexatious behaviour, forcing me to incur the time and costs of complying with the Court's directions on Court bundle.

b) ensure that the second claim gets struck out (as clearly can no longer be consolidated with the first.

Assume I should email the Court (marked for the attention of the same DDJ I addressed the consolidation request to) with an updated costs schedule (removing costs for attendance at the hearing) and a request for the second claim to be struck out?

On the indemnity basis, am I allowed to ask for costs at my actual pro-rata salary, rather than the £19ph litigant in person rate? And can I claim for the costs to date on the second claim too (have got to filing DQ stage on that one)?

I was actually starting to look forward to my day in court, so currently feels like a bit of a hollow victory...!

Still, another one bites the dust!

Coupon-mad

Assume I should email the Court (marked for the attention of the same DDJ I addressed the consolidation request to) with an updated costs schedule (removing costs for attendance at the hearing) and a request for the second claim to be struck out?

On the indemnity basis, am I allowed to ask for costs at my actual pro-rata salary, rather than the £19ph litigant in person rate? And can I claim for the costs to date on the second claim too (have got to filing DQ stage on that one)?

Pretty sure there is a link in the NEWBIES thread to Blue Toffee's costs that were granted after a hearing was discontinued but it's extremely rare.

If the second one goes ahead then yes, you can try for your actual loss of leave/salary.

NotanotherPPCscam

Thanks Coupon-mad, will go take a look.