Help! DEFENCE due

Coupon-mad

Search the forum for Kumari and you will find the rebuttal discussed a year or more ago, dozens of times until we were blue in the face.  It is about a signed lease and irrelevant to a parking claim.

Snakes_Belly

If the PPC are citing Chaplair Limited -v- Kumari [2015] in order to justify the costs for debt collection this has no relevance as the contract in this case was a signed contract in writing and the costs had actually been paid out. There was evidence of costs actually being paid out. The debt collection agents work on a no collection, no fee basis so if you don't pay up then no money changes hands. 

nosferatu1001

If you file no pictures, you know for sure they won't be included

justfile them. They can't really complain that their attempt to mislead the court has been uncovered. 

BaftyCrastard

Here is my Supplementary WS (redacted) before I send it - https://www.dropbox.com/s/08opv3k1osyk623/Supplementary WS - Redacted.pdf?dl=0

Umkomaas

the Claimant has failed to provide any evident to support such statement.

Para 3 - evidence, not evident?

I'm not sure I'd be using the word/heading 'Deceit'.  I'm no expert on the Fraud Act, have you researched that to destruction so you are confident in your attribution?

The Companies House record states 13 Officers, but your exhibit shows only 7. How do you answer the proposition at the hearing that the person in question could be listed as one of the officers 8 to 13? 

Fruitcake

In para 7 you mentioned S43 twice whereas it should be S 43 ( which refers to a simple contract) and S 44 (which refers to validly executed documents.)
You should also expand on what express and implied authority means for S 43. Express means that an officer of the company (owner, director, company secretary, someone with significant interest in the company) has stated that the person named on the contract has authority to sign. Implied mean that a particular position such as a manager, or property manager has been given authority by an officer, or it is stated somewhere such as in the company's Articles of Association.
You don't need to put all of that in, but you need to understand what it means, and should perhaps have a simple one liner that neither the company or a senior officer of the company has provided express or implied authority for a manager, or this unknown person J Sears/Sean to sign a contract on their behalf.

I would also add a one liner that according to S 44 of the Act, an authorised person must be a senior officer, not merely a manager. (The latter is the most common job title in the world.) Again, you also need to understand what it all means in case the judge asks you, which one did on a previous occasion when a poster here only mentioned S44 but was then asked if he understood the requirements of S 43.

You haven't mentioned DJJ Middleton's judgment in the Truro County Court. I suggest you add this because it supports the statements about the requirements of both S 43 and S 44 of the Companies Act 2006.

BaftyCrastard

Umkomaas said:

the Claimant has failed to provide any evident to support such statement.

Para 3 - evidence, not evident?

I'm not sure I'd be using the word/heading 'Deceit'.  I'm no expert on the Fraud Act, have you researched that to destruction so you are confident in your attribution?

The Companies House record states 13 Officers, but your exhibit shows only 7. How do you answer the proposition at the hearing that the person in question could be listed as one of the officers 8 to 13? 

Yeah spotted the typo and changed it. I will list the additional Directors but they aren't active (still important to include).
I was unsure on the Deceit element, should I remove it? Not sure it's necessary.

Fruitcake said:

In para 7 you mentioned S43 twice whereas it should be S 43 ( which refers to a simple contract) and S 44 (which refers to validly executed documents.)
You should also expand on what express and implied authority means for S 43. Express means that an officer of the company (owner, director, company secretary, someone with significant interest in the company) has stated that the person named on the contract has authority to sign. Implied mean that a particular position such as a manager, or property manager has been given authority by an officer, or it is stated somewhere such as in the company's Articles of Association.
You don't need to put all of that in, but you need to understand what it means, and should perhaps have a simple one liner that neither the company or a senior officer of the company has provided express or implied authority for a manager, or this unknown person J Sears/Sean to sign a contract on their behalf.

I would also add a one liner that according to S 44 of the Act, an authorised person must be a senior officer, not merely a manager. (The latter is the most common job title in the world.) Again, you also need to understand what it all means in case the judge asks you, which one did on a previous occasion when a poster here only mentioned S44 but was then asked if he understood the requirements of S 43.

You haven't mentioned DJJ Middleton's judgment in the Truro County Court. I suggest you add this because it supports the statements about the requirements of both S 43 and S 44 of the Companies Act 2006.

Corrected S43 and S44 thanks I've also expanded around the authority by an officer and added the DJJ Middleton judgement. Thanks for the feedback guys.
 

BaftyCrastard

Do I need to add an index for the Supplementary WS?

Coupon-mad

Not if it's short and clear.

BaftyCrastard

Coupon-mad said:

Not if it's short and clear.

My statement is 3 pages and exhibits take it to 9 pages. That should be ok?