Own Space Parking CCC

B789

Real_Cinnamon said:

I'm really sorry to ask for a big help, I have made my draft WS for the cost hearing, but as having no luck with both Peterborough & Luton cases references & transcripts, I'm fairly certain, what i have put together has considerable errors, appreciate any volunteers invaluable help who's able to have a quick glance through it and comment, hope i can send it via PM as an attachment. please let me know who's able to help, any help much appreciated, many thanks

Please don't PM your draft WS. Either post it here or upload to somewhere like DropBox where we can have a look at it. By keeping it "secret" from the rest of the readership, you are not assisting anyone else from learning through others mistakes.

Boat_to_Bolivia

Peterborough!

This one, maybe?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6379728/2-ukpc-court-claims-received/p3

Real_Cinnamon

B789 said:

Real_Cinnamon said:

I'm really sorry to ask for a big help, I have made my draft WS for the cost hearing, but as having no luck with both Peterborough & Luton cases references & transcripts, I'm fairly certain, what i have put together has considerable errors, appreciate any volunteers invaluable help who's able to have a quick glance through it and comment, hope i can send it via PM as an attachment. please let me know who's able to help, any help much appreciated, many thanks

Please don't PM your draft WS. Either post it here or upload to somewhere like DropBox where we can have a look at it. By keeping it "secret" from the rest of the readership, you are not assisting anyone else from learning through others mistakes.

Thanks B789, totally understand, genuinely it wasn't about "secrets" it's about fatal errors in it, also, most of challengers lurking here trying to catch whatever they can, we have seen that's even on their WSs, but i'll upload it here on Monday, as more available to comment, thanks

Coupon-mad

At a quick glance I didn't see you repeat and point out what your defence had near the end about the White Book annotation?  That's worth repeating and saying the Claimant was at all times on notice that a late discontinuance after wasting your time would result in costs.

Real_Cinnamon

Coupon-mad said:

At a quick glance I didn't see you repeat and point out what your defence had near the end about the White Book annotation?  That's worth repeating and saying the Claimant was at all times on notice that a late discontinuance after wasting your time would result in costs.

Thank you, very good point. i have now added below to end of the WS, now pushing to 7 pages, need to limit to 6, 

k) Defendant wish to reiterate that in his defence the Claimant was at all times on notice that a late discontinuance after wasting defendant’s valuable time would result in costs. Original defence quote;

“27. (a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

(b) that any hearing is not vacated but continues as a costs hearing, in the event of a late Notice of Discontinuance. The Defendant seeks a finding of unreasonable behaviour in the pre-and post-action phases by this Claimant, and will seek further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.”

Coupon-mad

No, add the White Book words from tge defence too!  Send your Judge scurrying to his/her WhiteBook snd you might be halfway to getting them onside.

Don't you want a paragraph briefly explaining why the claim was hopeless and that you'd told them your position in pre-action comms (if you did) so the Claim was vexatious and doomed from the outset.

I didn't see ant case law to support costs.  Isn't there some good wording in the thread I linked for you last week (the Premier Park late discontinuance)? I was pretty sure all his submissions were shown on that thread and he worded everything in a compelling way.  I urged you to copy that style.

Another one is of course the costs case linked in the NEWBIES thread by @bluetoffee1878

I didn't see your costs quantified either.  Can't go to a costs hearing without quantified costs.

See what @bargepole says.  The costs hearing is listed so you do have to give it a good go.

B789

I think that your witness statement is flawed in that you have included the WS from the other thread, unedited, literally copy and pasted into your WS. The numbering bears no relevance to your WS. There is no formatting to show or separate your "evidence" from the WS you've copy and pasted into your WS.

I stand to be corrected but paying devils advocate and looking at it as from a judges perspective or a legal rep for the claimant, it is confusing and apparent what is your statement and what is someone else statement and you've signed it as a statement of truth.

Maybe it just needs formatting better.

Real_Cinnamon

B789 said:

I think that your witness statement is flawed in that you have included the WS from the other thread, unedited, literally copy and pasted into your WS. The numbering bears no relevance to your WS. There is no formatting to show or separate your "evidence" from the WS you've copy and pasted into your WS.

I stand to be corrected but paying devils advocate and looking at it as from a judges perspective or a legal rep for the claimant, it is confusing and apparent what is your statement and what is someone else statement and you've signed it as a statement of truth.

Maybe it just needs formatting better.

I understand, I desperately try to link/ compare both Luton and Peterborough judgments, really struggling as no case number or the transcript, but both cases are almost identical, in my head, i'm desperately trying to make it it obvious for reader to see (Judge & C) that is the case, hence copied and pasted as is with reference, concerned about reproducing, i can't put them in bundle as authority not an official copy?? 

Coupon-mad

"AUTOSEC has behaved unreasonably by a late tactical discontinuance of this claim."

No, a discontinuance on its own is not unreasonable.  They have behaved unreasonably throughout this litigation.

Real_Cinnamon

Coupon-mad said:

"AUTOSEC has behaved unreasonably by a late tactical discontinuance of this claim."

No, a discontinuance on its own is not unreasonable.  They have behaved unreasonably throughout this litigation.

Thank you Coupon-mad
l) amended and reads as

l) On this basis Defendant would like to request a costs order to be made against the Claimant given that AUTO SECURITY LTD T/A AUTOSEC has behaved unreasonably throughout the litigation as pointed out before and further adding a late tactical discontinuance of this claim. The Defendant had significant costs to prepare the Defence of originally scheduled hearing and prepare attendance of the cost hearing and the costs claimed are shown in the attached costs schedule (bundle….)