Court hearing 27/05/2021

Castle

Given that the Intu Group entered Administration in June 2020 I would suspect that the Landowner's agreement has been terminated;-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merry_Hill_Shopping_Centre

D_P_Dance

If the PPC are submitting false documents under a statement of truth this should be brought to the attention  of the judge.  If he/she agrees  suggest that such conduct is unreasonable under CPR17.14(2)(g).and should be punished.

KeithP

Castle said:

Given that the Intu Group entered Administration in June 2020 I would suspect that the Landowner's agreement has been terminated;-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merry_Hill_Shopping_Centre

I don't think 'in administration' stops them from trading, does it?

chrisjinksss

Time is getting closer.
I have made a huge error in my WS and somehow made out as if I had taken the Images myself, and not taken them from google. they have sent a second witness statement explaining this and pointing out the fact i ought to be aware i can be found contempt in court for providing info on a WS without an honest belief in its truth.
They however have stated the images I used shows signs of a previous company managing the site. (the google image is dated after they was appointed to manage the land) So is it my fault they did not show their signs and they left previous signs showing no terms and conditions even if it had some they would not be relevant as they are not their signs. 
Only time will tell I guess but I assume from me stating I took the images and them actually being google images the judge may simply throw it out of court upon reading their 2nd witness statement.

Johnersh

Without knowing exactly what you say, it's hard to offer reliable views.

If it were me, I'd file a short statement saying that the claimant knows full well what is meant by "my photo" - if that's what was said. Namely the photo that I collated into the statement.

You can apologise for not being clearer, but make clear that you don't think anyone has been misled. It is the information that the photo presents that is relevant, not who took it.  You are, of course, happy to clarify. You can say I have visited the site and confirm that the photos were as they appeared to me on X date. 

It is a high bar for the defendant to show that you wilfully misled the court. I imagine the statement is opportunistic in tone.  It's likely a bad point. 

Further *IF APPLICABLE* if the party making the statement is a paralegal making standard representations about a site that they are unlikely to have ever visited, containing information provided to them by unnamed employees, one might suggest the statement maker is in no better a position to say with absolute certainty that the photos they adduce are any more reliable, insofar as the source of the information is usually fairly opaque. 

If the signs are in the same positions, that alone is helpful to the court. If you've suggested the wording is the same that is an error and may make your statement unreliable, but it's not contempt. 

Coupon-mad

Don't let them get to you.  That's what their WS intended.  A screenshot of a GSV photo is your photo evidence.