Court Defence advice please

bob5678

Thanks both

bob5678

Do I need to refer to every appendix in the text part of the WS, or can some appendixes be standalone with just a description on the actual appendix? 

bargepole

bob5678 said:

Do I need to refer to every appendix in the text part of the WS, or can some appendixes be standalone with just a description on the actual appendix? 

They are not appendices, they are your evidence exhibits.

Each one must be referred to in the text of the WS, this is how they are led into evidence. Just attaching a bunch of random documents at the end of your WS, with no explanation of what they are, and how they support your case, is unlikely to endear you to most Judges.

bob5678

bargepole said:

bob5678 said:

Do I need to refer to every appendix in the text part of the WS, or can some appendixes be standalone with just a description on the actual appendix? 

They are not appendices, they are your evidence exhibits.

Each one must be referred to in the text of the WS, this is how they are led into evidence. Just attaching a bunch of random documents at the end of your WS, with no explanation of what they are, and how they support your case, is unlikely to endear you to most Judges.

Thanks bargepole! I somehow mixed up appendixes and exhibits

bob5678

Well the WS has all been submitted. I didn't have time to share here before sending - apologies it just turned out that way. Would have loved the feedback from you all but there just wasn't time - thank you for all your help so far

Covid_Vaccinator

Excellent points - something I will also use!Fruitcake said:

The claimant has complained about your use of a defence, reasonably researched via the internet, where they rabbited on about how long and unnecessary it is, then produced a 49 page WS. Hypocrites.

They also query how the defendant can have known that the alleged event occurred in the dark. Er ... the images on the NTK were time and date stamped, and taken in the dark.


Have a look at this thread by Johnersh, who is legally trained, where he refers to an appeal court case. The judge effectively said that redacting evidence at the disclosure (exhibits) stage is unacceptable.
Whilst it can be argued that financial information about amounts paid from one party to another might be considered sensitive information, and redacting it would possibly be reasonable, redacting the identity of the signatories to a legally binding contract is most certainly unreasonable.
It could be reasonably assumed that on the balance of probabilities, redacting the identity of the parties involved in a legally binding contract has been done purely to hide the fact that the signatories are/were not authorised by their employers to form a contract with another party.

Redactions in Disclosure — MoneySavingExpert Forum

I suggest you quote the Hancock vs Promontoria case and attach the judgment. Note that this was an appeal court decision and is therefore persuasive on the lower courts.


Section 43 of the Companies Act 2006 states that a Simple Contract requires the agreement to be signed by persons having express or implied authority. 
(My interpretation). Express authority would be the owner or an officer of the company (director or company secretary).
Implied authority would be a position (job description) authorised in writing by someone with express authority, or included in company documentation such as its articles of association.

Since the signatories' identity and position within each company of the alleged parking agreement have been redacted, it is averred that neither party had neither express nor implied authority to form a Simple Contract with another party in accordance with the above Act. The claimant is put to strict proof that the contrary is true.


Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006 states that for a document to be validly executes, it must be signed by two authorised persons from each party. Authorised signatories are defined by the Act as directors and company secretaries.
Since the signatories' identity and position within each company of the alleged parking agreement have been redacted, it is averred that the document has not been signed by two authorised persons from each company, and therefore it has not been validly executed in accordance with the strict requirements of the above Act. The claimant is put to strict proof that the contrary is true.


The alleged contract is not with the landowner, CBRE, but with an alleged agent of the landowner, ReAssure Limited. For the claimant to have standing to issue charges and court claims, they must have authority with or flowing from the landowner.
No contract between the landowner and the claimant has been provided.
No contract flowing from the landowner to an agent, ReAssure Limited, giving the agent authority to form a contract with a third party, Premier Park Limited, has been provided.
Appendix 2 of the alleged contract between ReAssure Limited and Premier Park Limited refers to a Car Parking Services Agreement Framework, but no such agreement has been provided. There is no proof therefore that the alleged parking contract complies with the Car Parking Services Agreement.

Were any of these documents to exist, or indeed supported the claimant's claim, and since the claimant has referred to them in their witness statement, it is reasonable to assume that they would have been produced.
On the balance of probabilities, it is reasonable to assume that these documents have not been produced because they do not support the claimant's position. It is averred that these documents, contracts, and agreements support the defendant's position that the claimant does not have standing or authority to issue parking charges and court claims against a motorist. The claimant is put to strict proof that the contrary is true.