Help! DEFENCE due

Jenni_D

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!

DDJ ... Deputy District Judge

Fruitcake

Jenni_D said:

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!

DDJ ... Deputy District Judge

Looking back I see that he was/is a District Judge, not a Deputy.

Le_Kirk

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.

Is this right or should it be: -

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 or 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 or the owner.

Perfectly willing to be corrected but have never hard the term.

Fruitcake

Le_Kirk said:

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.

Is this right or should it be: -

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 or 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 or the owner.

Perfectly willing to be corrected but have never hard the term.

He used the word "of". It's in para 8 on the second page of this post (as opposed to page 2).

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

Le_Kirk

Yep, I see that, thanks you.  It seems a weird turn of phrase; how can anyone be a director of the owner?

Jenni_D

Le_Kirk said:

Yep, I see that, thanks you.  It seems a weird turn of phrase; how can anyone be a director of the owner?

Someone must own the company, thus a director of the company must be a director of (reporting to) the owner.

It is strange phrasing though - and not the first time this has happened either. (I recall another thread recently where the judge's turn of phrase was "unusual")

Umkomaas

I was rather taken by the description proffered by (the then) DJ (now HHJ) Claire Jackson when she referred to the ATA's Code of Practice as 'not a creature of statute'. 

Rapier lunge!

BaftyCrastard

I WON!! HAHA! The judge told the Claimant they were up a creek without a paddle before we even started! Basically came down to them providing absolutely zero evidence that they had signage on the site and I'd shown Exhibits that contradicted theirs (but mine were dated!). Feel a little bit sorry for the legal rep, he had no f'ing clue how to proceed with that case! 
Didn't get costs awarded due to small claims limit and because the hearing moved from 2:30pm to 11:30am I was only awarded £50 for half a days holiday instead of £95 for the full day. A little harsh in my eye but the Judge was very reasonable throughout and familiar with a lot of parking cases.  

nosferatu1001

Doesnt alter that you had to take the whoel day off, so you should have still had the full award
Well done!

Redx

Well done , a forum assisted win yet again !!  Bank park lose in Court !!

Another one bites the dust !!