JLA "Stopping" Charge

Coupon-mad

Router66 said:

Coupon-mad said:

I would never repeat the Claimant's position in a defence.

Bypassing POFA means there is NO law that allows hirer liability, at all.

...but if the hirer admits to being the driver, two years after making the Claimant aware that the Defendant is the hirer, then the Claimant is sitting pretty and the Defendant is stuffed?  

Stuffed on potential liability and identifying who the alleged contract was with, but not stuffed in terms of the Defendant showing that a fair and clear contract was NOT communicated or formed and that no breaches of the CoP occurred (conspicuous signage and grace periods are required, as well as landowner authority, etc).

Router66

Thank you Red X, DPD and Coupon Mad, some confidence has been restored but it looks like I will have to do a bit more on the Defence when I was hoping a tweak would be all that was needed.

and that no breaches of the CoP occurred ? I presume the "no" is a typo, or am I misunderstanding something?

KeithP

Router66 said:

and that no breaches of the CoP occurred ? I presume the "no" is a typo, or am I misunderstanding something?

It was suggested that you are not 'stuffed' if no breaches of the CoP occurred.

Router66

Thanks for that Keith, I can stop staring at it now!

Coupon-mad

Actually I was using a phone and edited it from the claimant's POV to the defendant's POV so I think I should have deleted the 'no'!

Router66

https://www.dropbox.com/s/3r9diawd8ovhpdz/Revised Defence.pdf?dl=0
Revised Defence for critique.
Thanks in advance

KeithP

I would suggest that you stick to simple numbering - none of this 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, etc stuff.
Either way, you have two paras numbered 3.7.

Router66

Why didn't I think of that? (no answer required)
The template points will follow on from #11.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3r9diawd8ovhpdz/Revised Defence.pdf?dl=0

Coupon-mad

Looks good to me, once re-numbered.

Le_Kirk

The following is normally posted (and was first pointed out) by @1505grandad: -

Hopefully you have read and understood the Template Defence and therefore realise that the existing para 7  in the Template states -  "He was not taken by either party to Somerfield in point #5 above and in any event it is worth noting that the lead Southampton case of Britannia v Crosby was not appealed."

As you now have more than paras 2 and 3 - and therefore have to renumber the subsequent paras - you have altered the reference to point 5 accordingly.