WIN - Another Loss for Gladstones

jaycee31

Coupon-mad said:

Did you copy in the claimant or their solicitor? Sounds like you did everything right.

Bung in a costs schedule in case they discontinue - quick!

Haha, I have indeed claimed for LIP costs.  I haven't had any dealings with the Claimant at all, everything has been to/from their solicitor.

jaycee31

And then in the post today is the Claimants WS and the “full” trial bundle just with their content, which wasn’t discussed and agreed with me before submission to court - they have just gone ahead and done it, contrary to court instruction!!  !!!!!!??

I have emailed them and the court objecting in the strongest terms.

Jenni_D

If it's an in-person hearing then it is usual for each party to compile their own bundles. The combined bundle requirement only came about due to remote hearings during COVID.

jaycee31

Jenni_D said:

If it's an in-person hearing then it is usual for each party to compile their own bundles. The combined bundle requirement only came about due to remote hearings during COVID.

Oh, in which case the court instructions are still wrong as it is clearly stated in there.  Terrific!

Coupon-mad

jaycee31 said:

Jenni_D said:

If it's an in-person hearing then it is usual for each party to compile their own bundles. The combined bundle requirement only came about due to remote hearings during COVID.

Oh, in which case the court instructions are still wrong as it is clearly stated in there.  Terrific!

Nope, you are right!

A lot of hearing orders just need each party to file & serve their own bundle BUT if your Directions specifically say that the legally represented party had to liaise and file and serve an agreed full bundle, then they have failed to comply with the order of the court.

This you should raise at the start of the hearing as a preliminary matter and have available your email proof that you did file & serve your bundle to the local court and to the claimant's solicitor in good time. Did you copy in both to the same email? No question that it arrived then, if the court got their copy, and you got both email addresses right.

However did you provide this in time for the solicitors to have a fair chance to include it in the bundle?

They might say 'we only got it Monday and had already posted the bundle by then' and they'll blame you and the Judge won't care.

jaycee31

@Coupon-mad. The fact still remains that they are as negligent as I am in terms of initiating the conversation to agree a joint trial bundle, if that is their argument/attitude.

I do have email proof and it was sent to both the court and the Claimant’s solicitor at the same time.

I believe they have been deliberately negligent to try and use that to their advantage in court. 

Coupon-mad

I agree and that's what I'd say. The duty was theirs.

jaycee31

@Coupon-mad.  The Claimant’s solicitor has ripped apart my Defence, which I would like your view on, as it is mostly from the template, if you have time.  I don’t want to post it here as I don’t want to potentially jeopardise my hearing on Friday.  What do you reckon?

Johnersh

Isn't that the point? How much of it is fact? It's likely just legal argument - it is not the purpose of a witness statement to adopt a critique. It won't be succinct like a skelly. It's probably an abuse.

Do we even know if the statement maker has visited the site? It is likely all retrospective analysis of documents that the court can easily read, if supplied to them.

My favourite case on this is jd wetherspoon plc v Harris. 

Trainerman

Johnersh said:

Isn't that the point? How much of it is fact? It's likely just legal argument - it is not the purpose of a witness statement to adopt a critique. It won't be succinct like a skelly. It's probably an abuse.

Do we even know if the statement maker has visited the site? It is likely all retrospective analysis of documents that the court can easily read, if supplied to them.

My favourite case on this is jd wetherspoon plc v Harris. 

Hello @Johnersh, I found that case an interesting read. Wouldn't that judgement mean that most PPC witness statements should be thrown out? That is, as the writer a) does not clearly indicate which exact points are in their own knowledge  and b) would not be allowed to testify orally under oath about parts of the case they had merely read.