Telephone hearing in June.. help and advice welcome

Coupon-mad

greenfern3655 said:

Johnersh said:

The claimants approach raises questions
1. It is late. They will need court permission to rely on it out of time
2. A statement was signed and verified with a statement of truth when it contained incorrect information. The court is entitled to an explanation as to how that occurred and as to who prepared the statement (eg a lawyer or the witness) and the means of preparation (a statement given by phone, a template etc) 

I assume that the court will be aware of this and proceed accordingly. 

Not unless you raise it, as @Johnersh says, as a preliminary matter.  Don't assume the court will do work for you.  Sometimes the Judges haven't even read anything let alone looked at dates.

greenfern3655

Thanks folks. Should I send a letter to the court calling attention to this then?

Coupon-mad

I'd have it as your first preliminary matter for the hearing, to raise before the Judge even lets the other side speak.

greenfern3655

Johnersh said:

The Denton issue is a preliminary point, so you need to get in there early with it. 

Does this relate to CPR 6.15(2)? 

KeithP

I just googled denton cpr.

You try it.

greenfern3655

Thanks. That's what I was looking for...The Denton Test. My google skills had only turned up some relative but obscure case transcripts.

Johnersh

Or put another way...
https://hsfnotes.com/litigation/2020/10/07/high-court-refuses-to-admit-late-witness-evidence-applying-principles-for-applications-for-relief-from-sanctions/

greenfern3655

@Johnersh Brilliant link thank you!

Johnersh

It follows that if there has been no prompt application and it was late, it should not be considered at all.

In opposing any request for relief it is worth saying why the breach is significant or serious.

The pattern here is continuous default and that's why its significant inmho:

1. Late documentary disclosure +2 weeks
2. Statement on time but containing incorrect information verified with a statement of truth and no reason given for yhat
3. Corrected statement served +4 weeks after deadline.

Late at all steps and the only document served on time was misleading and was later corrected (ie late). 

bargepole

Johnersh said:

It follows that if there has been no prompt application and it was late, it should not be considered at all.

In opposing any request for relief it is worth saying why the breach is significant or serious.

The pattern here is continuous default and that's why its significant inmho:

1. Late documentary disclosure +2 weeks
2. Statement on time but containing incorrect information verified with a statement of truth and no reason given for yhat
3. Corrected statement served +4 weeks after deadline.

Late at all steps and the only document served on time was misleading and was later corrected (ie late). 

I've been involved in cases where similar late or non service was a feature, with no application for relief from sanctions.

I've argued the Denton tests, and Barton v Wright Hassall LLP until I'm blue in the face.

But with some Judges, they will just shrug their shoulders, and say 'Well, this is small claims not the High Court, and we can allow some leeway'.