CCJ after CN

tommoCF

thank you Johnersh. I included a costs schedule in my witness statement, yes.

I also think my defence case against the original claim is solid. 

If I write to the claimant detailing the costs (which they already had in the copy of my WS I sent them previously), wouldn't my reasons for explaining why I was entitled to costs be dependent on providing specific evidence of their UB?

Coupon-mad

Yes, and mentioning the annotation in the White Book about small claims and getting costs after a discontinuance if the other party acted wholly unreasonably.

@Johnersh, don't suppose you can show us a screenshot of the annotation?  None of us have access to the White book.  It's mentioned near the end of the template defence but I've never seen the annotation that says this.

tommoCF

I'm finding the Dammerman case a bit tricky to understand, in terms of what actually consitutes unreasonable behaviour.

Is it of relevance that the original finding of the claimant's unreasonable behaiour was only made when the claimant's case was heard on appeal, rather than when the claim was originally dismissed? Or can UB not be identified if the claimant has no standing to make the claim?

The identification of UB at appeal relarted in part to the claimant getting the law 'obviously' wrong and that led to the costs order against them.

The claimant's subsequent attempt to overturn the costs order and the partial allowance on appeal which overturned the previous UB finding, was in part due to the law the claimant got wrong being considered obscure, or 'somewhat intracate', if I understand correctly.

On that basis, does it not follow that had the point of law in question been striaghtforward and not intricate, the finding of UB would not have been successfully appealed in this case?

Just triyng to get my head round how that relates to my own case, esp since the validity of the claim against me hasn't been tested, due to the claimant's discontinuance. If the key deteriment in the Dammerman case for unreasonable behaviour can be considered getting the law wrong when it relates to an intricate area of law, as opposed to a strightforward area of law, I'd have thought I have a good chance of being able to evidence UB.

My case involves primacy of contract at a residential parking site. I don't think the land in question is actually 'relevant land', but that could perhaps be considered a complex or even obscure point of law and is not part of my defence. But wouldn't the 'primacy of contract' area of law itself be considered relatively straightfoward and clear, i.e. when a right to park is clearly defined within the unvaried terms of a lease? Plus it also represents a significant component of the claimant's business model, so something they really ought to have awareness of. Parts of my WS present previous cases found against the claimant within the same timeframe, which explicitly clarify the relevant area of law and why it's applicable. 

tommoCF

*key determinant

Coupon-mad

But wouldn't the 'primacy of contract' area of law itself be considered relatively straightforward and clear, i.e. when a right to park is clearly defined within the unvaried terms of a lease?

Plus it also represents a significant component of the claimant's business model, so something they really ought to have awareness of. Parts of my WS present previous cases found against the claimant within the same timeframe, which explicitly clarify the relevant area of law and why it's applicable. 

Yes, sounds like a start. 

Did they do anything else during the litigation that was unreasonable, such as missing a court deadline for their WS and evidence and just waiting till they saw yours, and then hurriedly discontinuing despite the fact nothing had changed about the legalities and they knew all along you were a resident.

@bargepole has lay repped at a few residential cases. 

One where the Judge said it was unacceptable to expect a resident to display a permit, like a Union Flag every time they were home!

Another UKCPM one recently where the Judge specifically ruled that, as there was no variation of lease agreed by 75% of the leaseholders, UKCPM had no authority to issue and enforce parking charges. 

Judgment here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/scou8k818p2x3lo/Residential Judgment UKCPM.pdf?dl=0

tommoCF

Many thanks - yes the claimant missed the court deadline for submitting their WS and evidence, then just discontinued not long after receiving mine. They also failed to serve me a copy of their directions questionnaire (but they did send that to the court, apparently).

Nothing changed about the legalities and at the ccj set-aside hearing I clarified that I was (and remain) a leaseholder (the claimant did submit a WS for the ccj hearing, but sent nothing for the defended claim).

So would I just add those details to my WS under a header of 'UB'? (my WS already contain details of the primacy of contract of my lease and evidence the lease hasn't been varied at all).

And is it right that I don't need to send in a defence document now the case is following this particualr route? 

tommoCF

*ccj set-aside hearing

Le_Kirk

tommoCF said:

*ccj set-aside hearing

With 62 posts under your belt, you should be able to edit them now, just click on the gear symbol at the RHS of the blue banner in the relevant post.

Coupon-mad

- yes the claimant missed the court deadline for submitting their WS and evidence, then just discontinued not long after receiving mine. They also failed to serve me a copy of their directions questionnaire (but they did send that to the court, apparently). 

Now you are talking!  The court take a very dim view of missing court deadlines and this is well worth spelling out - breaches of directions and Orders.

List the conduct under a heading 'Unreasonable Conduct'

tommoCF

Many thanks Coupon-mad.

Le_Kirk said:

tommoCF said:

*ccj set-aside hearing

With 62 posts under your belt, you should be able to edit them now, just click on the gear symbol at the RHS of the blue banner in the relevant post.

Thanks Le_Kirk, you're right - apologies, and noted!