County Court Defence against Gladstone+UKCPM advice needed!!!

Fruitcake

The signatures are unredacted in the dropbox link but are illegible.

The contract has not been executed in accordance with section 44 of the Companies Act 2006.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44

"44 Execution of documents

(1) Under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland a document is executed by a company—
(a) by the affixing of its common seal, or
(b) by signature in accordance with the following provisions.

(2) A document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company—
(a) by two authorised signatories, or
(b) by a director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the signature.

(3) The following are “authorised signatories” for the purposes of subsection (2)—
(a) every director of the company, and
(b) in the case of a private company with a secretary or a public company, the secretary (or any joint secretary) of the company."

The alleged contract has not been executed in accordance with paragraph 1 because it has not been signed by two people from each company nor by a director and witness of each company in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 2, and has not been signed by authorised signatories as defined in paragraph 3.

In addition, the signatures are illegible, there is no printed version of their name, nor their position in the company. You therefore require the scammers to prove they are actually employees of the two companies concerned as there is no indication on the document that they actually work for the two named companies or in what capacity.

This is similar to a recent case where the judge said the contract was not valid because the signatory was not a director of the owner.
District Judge Simon Middleton, sitting in Truro County Court on the 3rd of July 2020, case number F1DP92KF, said that,
" ... Claire Williams could not have signed the contract on behalf of the owner because she is not a director of the owner."

Castle

KeithP said:

Why does Mr Chapman use the words "The Claimant believes..." in that Statement of Truth?
The generally accepted wording is "I believe...".
Is Mr Chapman not brave enough to confirm that he believes what he has written to be true?

A company is incapable of believing anything.

Fruitcake

I also don't understand why "Mr Chapman" has spent so much time and energy explaining why "he" has used an electronic signature, and why "he" thinks it is perfectly reasonable. It would have been much quicker and easier to spend three nano seconds signing the thing by hand.

nosferatu1001

I would ask the statembnet is struck out, as it has not been signed under the correct statement of truth. The claimant is a legal entity, and cannot believe anything. 

swooshy

Have received an email from the court. Will keep you guys posted when the case is relisted.
"The hearing in this matter on the 14 August 2020 is provisionally listed and unfortunately the Court does not have a Judge available to hear the case. The hearing has therefore been vacated and will be relisted as soon as possible. Please provide any unavailable dates for the next 9 months to assist the Court in relisting the matter."

beamerguy

"I BELIEVE JACK THE LAD ?"  ....  PS: I DON'T
Does he really think a Judge has so much free time to read such rubbish ?

The one thing Jack really does believe is the fake unlawful add-on and he confirms it with his rubber stamp as a statement of truth ?  He must be trying to mug the judge who has decided he is too busy to waste time on such timewasting cases

My sniffer dog thinks this will be another spanking for Gladstones

KeithP

I'll say it again in case it gets lost:

KeithP said:

Keep your eye on paras 22 to 26. You need to be firm in your rebuttal of that.

That really is important.

nosferatu1001

"Please provide any unavailable dates for the next 9 months to assist the Court in relisting the matter."
Have you done that?

swooshy

nosferatu1001 said:

"Please provide any unavailable dates for the next 9 months to assist the Court in relisting the matter."
Have you done that?

Yes, have done so