Another DCBL Claim

blackmath

Thanks, I do keep an eye on the forum even if I don't post.

blackmath

Can I just email the witness statement to the court and cc the claimant solicitors?

Coupon-mad

Yes. But don't use the one in the NEWBIES thread.

Exemplar WS are by @aphex007 and @SJRRJS

blackmath

I've received a supplementary witness statement on the day of the hearing. All documents should have been received no later than 14 days before the hearing.

Should I point it out to the judge immediately?

Fruitcake

Yes, and quote the court order/CPR that has been breached by their attempt to hijack the hearing with new evidence. Ask for it to be dismissed as unfair (unless you want a postponement to give you time to respond - not recommended).

B789

blackmath said:

I've received a supplementary witness statement on the day of the hearing. All documents should have been received no later than 14 days before the hearing.

Should I point it out to the judge immediately?

Absolutely. Have they sought the court's permission to introduce the SWS?

In general, parties are expected to comply with court directions and file all relevant documents within the time limits set out in those directions. However, if there is a compelling reason why a supplementary witness statement needs to be introduced on the day of the court hearing, it may be possible to seek permission from the court to do so.

To do this, they would need to make an application to the court as soon as possible, setting out the reasons why the supplementary witness statement is necessary and why it was not filed within the required time limit. The court will then consider the application and decide whether or not to grant permission for the supplementary witness statement to be introduced.

It is important to note that the court's decision will depend on the specific circumstances of the case and whether the interests of justice require the admission of the supplementary witness statement. If the court does allow the statement to be introduced, it may also impose conditions, such as requiring the other party to be given additional time to respond.

Le_Kirk

Of course, if it helps you ............

blackmath

Had the hearing, I'll give a write up later, but sounds like the judge wanted to find a middle ground. He said there was case law to decide in either direction (and had sympathy for the driver, thanks?). Claimant ended up with less than half what they wanted on PoC, yet abuse of process argument didn't even register.

He stripped all the extra charges and reduced interest down to 2%. Annoyed on fixed fees as should be one bracket lower.

One thing I learnt is that you really need to do everything in an ELI5 manner.

Coupon-mad

blackmath said:

Had the hearing, I'll give a write up later, but sounds like the judge wanted to find a middle ground. He said there was case law to decide in either direction (and had sympathy for the driver, thanks?). Claimant ended up with less than half what they wanted on PoC, yet abuse of process argument didn't even register.

He stripped all the extra charges and reduced interest down to 2%. Annoyed on fixed fees as should be one bracket lower.

One thing I learnt is that you really need to do everything in an ELI5 manner.

Bad luck, I take it this was multi tickets so hard to argue you were unaware of the terms?

Why did they win?  On what basis?

Were your two claims ever consolidated along the way or is there another one coming?

Will await your write up.

blackmath

There isn't really much info in the judgement. So they got £100 for some charges plus a tiny bit of interest and fixed costs.

I think the judge basically insisted that even if there were contradictory signs in place (ignoring the entry sign, there were two versions of the detailed T&Cs, one had nothing about not parking out of hours, otherwise signs identical), that all the signs collectively were sufficient, and the driver should have read them all. How would a driver know the two signs that look identical in all but one bullet point were two different signs? He sprung this on me in the judgement and too late to say anything. CRA defense here fell on deaf ears clearly.

I have one more, where hopefully the abuse of process holds more weight as they have already been warned, this was an attempt at double recovery. A good point the judge made was the discount offered is an attempt to avoid extra costs and so they had already added them on.