Rarely is the landowner contract irrelevant - what's so special about your case that makes this so?
Has anyone had a look at the WS to see if its good enough? Any feedback would be appreciated.
Why leave out the landowner contract? If it is redacted and they are not sharing the information with you or the courts, how are you or the courts meant to ascertain whether there is a contract in place? It could have been signed by Mickey mouse. I believe there was a case recently where it was decided that redacted contracts are basically useless and proof of nothing in a court. Are you saying you requested it and they refused to supply it?.... if so, that's even more relevant and you should definitely be mentioning that...
Redacted Landowner Contract
15. The Claimant has appended a
redacted ‘Customer License Agreement’ which has little or no probative value
and which offends against the rules of evidence. The ‘Client’ signatory of the
‘Agreement’ could be anyone, even a stranger to the land, and the Claimant
provides no evidence that the ‘Client’ is the landowner.
16. It is also clear that the
document has not been signed by two Directors, nor by one Director in the
presence of attesting witnesses, and as such cannot – according to the
Companies Act – be considered a validly executed contract. The network of
contracts are key in these cases, since the parking charges are argued to be
contractual and the authority to sue visitors must flow from the landowner, not
17. In the recent Court of Appeal
case of Hancock v Promontoria (Chestnut) Limited  EWCA Civ 907 the Court
of Appeal are now clear that most redactions are improper where the Court are
being asked to interpret the contract. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/907.html
Ref. paras 74 & 75 ''...The
document must in all normal circumstances be placed before the court as a
whole. Seldom, if ever, can it be appropriate for one party unilaterally to
redact provisions in a contractual document which the court is being asked to
construe, merely on grounds of confidentiality...confidentiality alone cannot
be good reason for redacting an otherwise relevant provision...''
What's your best story from 2021?
All 105,000 policyholders affected
Organic fruit & veg