Need help with CCJ Set Aside and issues relating to SAR

Le_Kirk

Johnersh said:

Presumably Jeff will want it to say the claimant do pay the defendants costs of the application dated x in any event. 

That will entitle Jeff to those costs irrespective of win or loss at the end (albeit that sum to be determined).

I haven't looked back, but that form of wording suggests that one case is in essence a test case for multiple tickets. So long as that is what is intended that's fine too. Progress... 

Jeff_Goldblum said:

Wonderful Johnersh.

Considering there were two claims that I had to pay 2 N244 applications, would the following suffice?

1. The claimant to pay the defendants costs of the N244 applications dated xx/xx/2020 for the claims [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] in any event.

Strange as it may seem (and it offends my grammatical upbringing) I have had discussions with @Johnersh about this and he states it is "lawyer speak" so I would change it back. 

Jeff_Goldblum

Ahh no worries, I assumed a typo so will change it back

Coupon-mad

Yep, it is 'do pay'.

Johnersh

OK, I scrolled back. In fairness to C, the costs were reserved by the judge at the applucation hearing, so they are unlikely to agree to paying them now.

A better solution might be to change it to the defendants costs of the successful application to set aside default judgment in respect of claims x and y are reserved. Thereby removing ambiguity and preventing C claiming their costs if ultimately successful. I say that because my understanding is that C never properly served the claim.

Costs follow the event, so having won the application it could not have been the courts intention to preserve Cs entitlement to seek costs for that hearing. It just means that you need to win if you are to recover the total outlay. 

Johnersh

OK, so personally, I wouldn't draw the order as the claimant PPC proposes, I'd order simply that claim number x and y are heard together.

The order (and all witness statements etc) then simply puts both claim numbers in the top right corner. The concept of a lead case is more usual where there are a number of similar fact cases involving different parties.  

I think it's neater, but probably not critical. 

Jeff_Goldblum

So bear with me on this. It's a long one. Sent over as you guys suggested (which I am extremely grateful for). Just got the below email as a reply. Looks like they want to settle outside of court and refund my costs! Result!! Let me know your thoughts on this guys. It's not including the Litigant in Person fee etc but its the straight money I've lost. I claimed over £900 in all you see so this is what they're arguing against.

It is our Client's position that had the Judge intended to award the costs of the applications made, this would have been so ordered on the date in question instead of reserved.

As they were reserved, our proposed directions seek only to extend and continue the Judgment of [REDACTED] at the hearing.

For the above reasons, we propose our initial proposed directions again for your approval, which are attached for ease of reference. (Now attached)

Without prejudice save as to costs

In respect of settlement, you have claimed for costs which seek to demonstrate unreasonable behaviour on behalf of our client in order that the same can be applied.

It is our client's position its behaviour does not exceed the threshold which would result in these costs being recoverable, in that in the case of Dammerman v Lanyon Bowdler LLP [2017] EWCA Civ 269, it was held the test for unreasonable behaviour in small claims is whether the conduct is 'permitted of a reasonable explanation'.

It is our Client's position all steps taken thus far in proceedings represent a reasonable explanation, as set out in the letter excusing its attendance at the hearing, therefore any costs sought in relation to unreasonable behaviour will be strongly opposed on this basis.

Ultimately, it is our Client's position that had the DVLA held your current address at the time the charges were issued / had either their our our correspondence been addressed by you prior to proceedings, the need for applications to remove the Judgments could have been avoided as your address would have been rectified.

Notwithstanding the above and in order to attempt to bring this matter to a conclusion, we propose instead the parties agree to a consent order in the following terms with respect to settlement:

1. The Lead Claim be dismissed;

2. The Claimant do pay to the Defendant the sum of [£500+ EDITED] (representing the £510 Application fees and [REDACTED] for half day attendance at the single hearing which consolidated both matters) within 14 days; and

3. There be no further Order as to costs.

We look forward to hearing from you.

D_P_Dance

Have you seen this?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonability

Coupon-mad

Jeff_Goldblum said:

So bear with me on this. It's a long one. Sent over as you guys suggested (which I am extremely grateful for). Just got the below email as a reply. Looks like they want to settle outside of court and refund my costs! Result!! Let me know your thoughts on this guys. It's not including the Litigant in Person fee etc but its the straight money I've lost. I claimed over £900 in all you see so this is what they're arguing against.

It is our Client's position that had the Judge intended to award the costs of the applications made, this would have been so ordered on the date in question instead of reserved.

As they were reserved, our proposed directions seek only to extend and continue the Judgment of [REDACTED] at the hearing.

For the above reasons, we propose our initial proposed directions again for your approval, which are attached for ease of reference. (Now attached)

Without prejudice save as to costs

In respect of settlement, you have claimed for costs which seek to demonstrate unreasonable behaviour on behalf of our client in order that the same can be applied.

It is our client's position its behaviour does not exceed the threshold which would result in these costs being recoverable, in that in the case of Dammerman v Lanyon Bowdler LLP [2017] EWCA Civ 269, it was held the test for unreasonable behaviour in small claims is whether the conduct is 'permitted of a reasonable explanation'.

It is our Client's position all steps taken thus far in proceedings represent a reasonable explanation, as set out in the letter excusing its attendance at the hearing, therefore any costs sought in relation to unreasonable behaviour will be strongly opposed on this basis.

Ultimately, it is our Client's position that had the DVLA held your current address at the time the charges were issued / had either their our our correspondence been addressed by you prior to proceedings, the need for applications to remove the Judgments could have been avoided as your address would have been rectified.

Notwithstanding the above and in order to attempt to bring this matter to a conclusion, we propose instead the parties agree to a consent order in the following terms with respect to settlement:

1. The Lead Claim be dismissed;

2. The Claimant do pay to the Defendant the sum of [£500+ EDITED] (representing the £510 Application fees and [REDACTED] for half day attendance at the single hearing which consolidated both matters) within 14 days; and

3. There be no further Order as to costs.

We look forward to hearing from you.

That sounds great but the only thing that bothers me is that ONLY the lead claim be dismissed?  Yet you had 2 CCJs and they are prepared to refund both those fees to you.  So what happens to claim #2, the non-lead claim? 

Maybe @Johnersh can explain if he thinks this needs nailing down with more clarity but this is very positive news.

Jeff_Goldblum

Ahh when the judgements were set aside, the Judge consolidated the claims.

I'm assuming that this is what they mean but I'll wait until Jonersh responds just to ensure I don't agree to anything that will bite me down the road.

Edit: just to clarify on this to avoid any confusion, on my N244s, I requested that the claims be consolidated but they weren't. I was given two court dates, one at the end of March and one at the beginning of April.

First court date in March rolled around. They didn't show up to court, Judge set it aside and realised I had another one scheduled and set that aside too, consolidating the claims to one.

henrik777

Ask them what they mean by lead claim.

Only when you understand, and are happy, should you agree.