Court Papers received - draft abuse of process defence

nosferatu1001

Th employer of the D are not a party to the claim, so i have no idea how their costs could in any way be considered relevant. 

Umkomaas

beamerguy said:

nosferatu1001 said:

As for the Ds employers costs? Not a cat in hells chance. 

I tend to agree but it's not a no go area.  Parking Eye v The Barrister says they can do it, if they want to

Nicholas Bowen QC (and a senior QC to boot). BBC Middle East Correspondent Jeremy Bowen's younger bruv. 

https://www.legalcheek.com/2017/08/parking-company-sues-top-qc-loses/

But I'm not sure the damages awarded to him were related to any losses his employer might have suffered. 

It can't make sense that a Defendant could be handed a slab of cash to cover their employer's loss extending as a result of the individual having half a day off work, then hoping they would pay that money over to the employer.  @nosferatu1001 is undoubtedly right. 

MC12345

Thanks, rest assured I am reading as much on here as possible.

I think when the time comes we will do a summary of costs but also, if its allowed (??) add that there will be further costs to be added as a direct result of the defendant attending court, namely her employer having to outsource the work she normally does which will incur significant costs.

Had the claimant not filed a <suitable adjective > claim which they were fully aware was unreasonable on the grounds that:

1.Cited case law demonstrates.

2. The defendant had demonstrated to the claimant and their' legal representatives the parking payment had been paid and requested the claimant withdraw their claim

3.Appendix XX demonstrates the claimant has had numerous cases dismissed as an abuse of process and held in contempt of court for filing similar claims

Not withstanding the above the claimant and their legal representatives still continued with their case. or similar ?

A revised summary cost of the outsourcing will not be know until the day in question of the hearing and will be provided at the hearing but it should be noted these will likely sit in the region of £7000-£13,000, this was brought to the attention of the claimant prior to the hearing in order to give them ample opportunity to withdraw their claim.

Or something like that in legal speak - shooting from the hip obviously at present and searching forum for similar......

nosferatu1001

Almost no certainty of that flying. Again, the D's employer are not a party to the claim and must be able to deal with the D having a day off, because htey have to be able to. 

MC12345

nosferatu1001 said:

Almost no certainty of that flying. Again, the D's employer are not a party to the claim and must be able to deal with the D having a day off, because htey have to be able to. 

shame..... can only ask though right ! :-)

beamerguy

nosferatu1001 said:

Th employer of the D are not a party to the claim, so i have no idea how their costs could in any way be considered relevant. 

I do not disagree. It is better to say something than say nothing. The judge can only say no. With judges being unpredictable. The D may be penalised by her employer.  

nosferatu1001

...which would be unlawful. 
Employers would be on very shaky ground denying leave to someone defneding a court claim. Thats a ECHR breach, for a start. 

MC12345

Umkomaas said:

beamerguy said:

nosferatu1001 said:

As for the Ds employers costs? Not a cat in hells chance. 

I tend to agree but it's not a no go area.  Parking Eye v The Barrister says they can do it, if they want to

Nicholas Bowen QC (and a senior QC to boot). BBC Middle East Correspondent Jeremy Bowen's younger bruv. 

[link removed because I cant post them yet]

But I'm not sure the damages awarded to him were related to any losses his employer might have suffered. 

It can't make sense that a Defendant could be handed a slab of cash to cover their employer's loss extending as a result of the individual having half a day off work, then hoping they would pay that money over to the employer.  @nosferatu1001 is undoubtedly right. 

I agree, but what if the defendant costs order asked that her employer should be suitably compensated as part of the costs order, e.g. some to her and the majority to her employer ?

It just seems very unjust that her employer should suffer financially as a result of a bunch of cowboys flinging out dodgy claims in the hope that some **** will stick to the wall.

Perhaps I'm too much of an idealist.

nosferatu1001

Not. going. to. work.
Again. The employer is not a party, and i see no actually good reason why you should want this in general. Its a dangerous slope 
If the employer suffers, then they have a claim to make themselves. But again, any notice woul dbe ~2 months mark, for a half day off. The employer must be expected to be able to manage that as a part of their normal cost of business. 

MC12345

Is this still the latest case law on unreasonable behaviour ?

 becket-chambers.co.uk/2017/05/24/acid-test-unreasonable-acts-unreasonable-behaviour-costs-small-claims-track/

which refers to

 bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1994/40.html
(sorry they are not links, I'm not allowed to post them yet)