Please help!Letter from Newlyn

nosferatu1001

No, that's not what that means. They're asking. The court has not ordered it, the court ordered the claimant to do it. So she could of course respond back telling them that her position is the court told tTHEM to do it, so unless the court orders otherwise, they should be doing it

youre not reading carefully enough . The only one who can dictate anything is the court 

nikkietoni

Thanks .. but they would have to then send her bundle .  I suppose so at least this way she gets to make sure her bundle is in there and seen.

D_P_Dance

IMO the solicitor  appears to be contradicting the instructions of the court.    

nosferatu1001

Yes, but theyre allowed to "negotiate" on this - after all, if the two parties agreed that it can be the D that files the bundle, I am pretty sure the court would not give two figs. 

D_P_Dance

But why should the OP negotiate. whether you are sure of the court's position or not.  Thinking outside the box, the OP may be able to use the solicitors refusal to abide by the court's instructions to his/her advantage.   

nosferatu1001

They haven't refused
They have proposed
There is quite a difference between the two states.
Thinking outside the box is all good, but so is actually parsing a sentence correctly - if the D does not object to the Cs proposal, no-one has refused anything. If the D objects to their proposal and the C *then* states they will not perform the court Order, then there is refusal. It's a difference perhaps too subtle for one after 2 bottles of blue nun to appreciate. 

The D also has to eb careful, as of course the overriding objective applies equally to them. 

D_P_Dance

They haven't refused  They have proposed

 it is our position that the trial bundle should be filed by you   could be either and, once again you are guessing.  You are also guessing what reaction the court might take. 

Le_Kirk

The defendant (OP) should send an e-mail to the claimant stating that the court order required the claimant to send the E-BUNDLE to the court's data room not to her daughter (this gets confusing, presumably daughter is the defendant), however, to make sure the court gets all the documents, the defendant is sending the E-BUNDLE to the court's data room and is including a copy of the claimant's letter/e-mail requesting the defendant to carry out the court's request.  This along has added to the unreasonable behaviour of the claimant.

nikkietoni

thanks guys for all your help.. all gone yesterday but got an email from court saying could not open the files on mediafire. Don’t know why as no problem other people opening them as did a trial run!
so had to send pdf’s in the end on the email backed up with all the direct links to mediafire. But what was weird was they said either send pdfs or by post!!! The case is tomorrow hardly think they would get it by tomorrow !!!
so it may be postponed as apparently when my daughter spoke to them at the court on friday they said loads of telephone hearings getting postponed .  

nosferatu1001

Because you dont know what their "corporate" settings allow. For example my work laptop is completely restricted on what sites such as dropbox it can reach - for obvious reasons
D_P_Dance said:

They haven't refused  They have proposed

 it is our position that the trial bundle should be filed by you   could be either and, once again you are guessing.  You are also guessing what reaction the court might take. 

AH, so youre reading an implicit refusal into an explicit proposal? Thats on you, not them.
The courts expect C and D to cooperate, that isn't a guess. I'm also basing this on many, many court reports about how courts treat direct violations of an order, on the small claims track, and the majority don't seem to care too much. Or do you disagree?