Help! DEFENCE due

Fruitcake

An index will only take up a few lines, and the headings themselves will act as bullet points for the court/judge. Make sure the numbers and headings in the index are the same as the numbers and headings of the paragraphs themselves, and choose attention grabbing titles where possible.

BaftyCrastard

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.

Sorry do you have a link for the DJJ Middleton judgement? I can't find it when I search the case number F1DP92KF in their archieve. Thanks in advance!

BaftyCrastard

Hopefully final draft of my S WS (feedback welcome, thanks!) - https://www.dropbox.com/s/n2r6m5rabq2w1zh/Supplementary WS - Redacted.pdf?dl=0

Umkomaas

BaftyCrastard said:

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.

Sorry do you have a link for the DJJ Middleton judgement? I can't find it when I search the case number F1DP92KF in their archieve. Thanks in advance!

@Fruitcake may have a better link, but my quick forum search brought up his post from last year with a link to a scan of (part of) the judgment. Have a look at the links in that post. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/77459218#Comment_77459218

1505grandad

I may have missed something but just checking:-

"............, in direct contradiction to evidence provided by Cheshire East Council (Exhibit xx/05"

Exhibit 5 seems to be Companies House entry for Real Estate Investors PLC

BaftyCrastard

1505grandad said:

I may have missed something but just checking:-

"............, in direct contradiction to evidence provided by Cheshire East Council (Exhibit xx/05"

Exhibit 5 seems to be Companies House entry for Real Estate Investors PLC

It's referencing Exhibit xx/05 from my Witness Statement, which is a copy of the Freedom Of Information request I received back from Cheshire East Council stating they have no record of any planning requests / permitted development enquiries. Any reference to Exhibits within the Supplementary Witness Statement are labelled as Supplementary Exhibits. Hope that helps

BaftyCrastard

BaftyCrastard said:

1505grandad said:

I may have missed something but just checking:-

"............, in direct contradiction to evidence provided by Cheshire East Council (Exhibit xx/05"

Exhibit 5 seems to be Companies House entry for Real Estate Investors PLC

It's referencing Exhibit xx/05 from my Witness Statement, which is a copy of the Freedom Of Information request I received back from Cheshire East Council stating they have no record of any planning requests / permitted development enquiries. Any reference to Exhibits within the Supplementary Witness Statement are labelled as Supplementary Exhibits. Hope that helps

Maybe I should clarify from my Witness Statement hmmm...

Fruitcake

BaftyCrastard said:

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.

Sorry do you have a link for the DJJ Middleton judgement? I can't find it when I search the case number F1DP92KF in their archieve. Thanks in advance!

It was linked from the link I posted earlier.

LBC stage but who is my parking contract with? - Page 4 — MoneySavingExpert Forum

Quote the judge's words along with the court details and the judge's name.

In parking case number F1DP92KF heard at Truro County Court on the 3rd of July 2020, District Judge Simon Middleton said, "Claire Williams could not have signed the contract on behalf of the owner because she is not a director of the owner."

This case is no different to mine. J Sears/Sean could not have signed the contract on behalf of the owner because he is not a director of the owner.

KeithP

BaftyCrastard said:

BaftyCrastard said:

1505grandad said:

I may have missed something but just checking:-

"............, in direct contradiction to evidence provided by Cheshire East Council (Exhibit xx/05"

Exhibit 5 seems to be Companies House entry for Real Estate Investors PLC

It's referencing Exhibit xx/05 from my Witness Statement, which is a copy of the Freedom Of Information request I received back from Cheshire East Council stating they have no record of any planning requests / permitted development enquiries. Any reference to Exhibits within the Supplementary Witness Statement are labelled as Supplementary Exhibits. Hope that helps

Maybe I should clarify from my Witness Statement hmmm...

Yes, I think you should. Having two 'Ex05's can only lead to confusion.
Suggest you continue the sequential numbering from where your original exhibits finished.

BaftyCrastard

KeithP said:

BaftyCrastard said:

BaftyCrastard said:

1505grandad said:

I may have missed something but just checking:-

"............, in direct contradiction to evidence provided by Cheshire East Council (Exhibit xx/05"

Exhibit 5 seems to be Companies House entry for Real Estate Investors PLC

It's referencing Exhibit xx/05 from my Witness Statement, which is a copy of the Freedom Of Information request I received back from Cheshire East Council stating they have no record of any planning requests / permitted development enquiries. Any reference to Exhibits within the Supplementary Witness Statement are labelled as Supplementary Exhibits. Hope that helps

Maybe I should clarify from my Witness Statement hmmm...

Yes, I think you should. Having two 'Ex05's can only lead to confusion.
Suggest you continue the sequential numbering from where your original exhibits finished.

Good idea!