Upcoming parking hearing - Deputy District Judge Conflict of interest????!

rennes99

Hi all.

I have a hearing in a few weeks for a multiple PCN case with UKPC.

This was one that was originally set aside 2 years ago (CCJ to old address from several years before!!), which was successful thanks to the excellent advice on here!

It is now due for trial in Feb (defence etc submitted after the set aside 2 years ago... i'm worried some of it will be out of date, particularly the Abuse of Process advice from early 2020, but that's a separate issue, and hopefully not....)

I this week received the Claimants bundle. In it, is a court document from mid 2021 - a "notice of allocation to the small claims track (hearing.)" It states that Deputy District Judge XXXXXXX has considered the statements of the case and DQ filed and allocated it to Small Claims Track.

I've just googled the name of this Judge XXXXXXX and he appears to have been, up until a few years ago, the head of advocacy at the law firm who are acting for the claimant in my case....

Does this sound right?! It's a unique name, and indeed states that current occupation is Deputy District Judge, in the same area as the court. I'm sure it's the same person.

Looking up the role of Deputy District Judge, I can see some info about them sitting on a fee-paid basis for a certain amount for days per year, etc etc.

Now I could be reading too much into this, and I have no idea if the Judge named on the Allocation order will be the same as in the trail hearing next month, but I am immediately worried about a conflict of interest here!!

Should I be??

Many thanks

Redx

It's a hearing , not a trial !

Abuse of process is no defence to the PCN or original court claim , so not a get out of jail free card

There are no guarantees that the same judge who issued the court order will be your hearing judge

rennes99

Thanks Redx.

Of course the AOP argument is (was) challenging the £60 on each of the charges, and it tainting the whole claim, thus hopefully thrown out. I understand that.

However why is a former employee of the claimants law firm, the firm i'm up against, anywhere near my case as a Judge?!! That's what i'm worried about!

Redx

rennes99 said:

Thanks Redx.

Of course the AOP argument is (was) challenging the £60 on each of the charges, and it tainting the whole claim, thus hopefully thrown out. I understand that.

However why is a former employee of the claimants law firm, the firm i'm up against, anywhere near my case as a Judge?!! That's what i'm worried about!

There was a more recent appeal case where it was determined that the hearing goes ahead even if the spurious charges are struck out , Bargepole posted about it ( Excel ) , so it won't be thrown out , or highly unlikely. ( What it was like pre pandemic doesn't matter )

No appeal was made because it all changes this summer ( so I wouldn't be being sidetracked by it )

I won't be commenting on your main question , maybe bargepole will ?

BrownTrout

Its a red herring and there is no conflict of interest.
Many DDJ/DJ are solicitors so this will often happen

Coupon-mad

 this week received the Claimants bundle. In it, is a court document from mid 2021 - a "notice of allocation to the small claims track (hearing.)" It states that Deputy District Judge XXXXXXX has considered the statements of the case and DQ filed and allocated it to Small Claims Track.

I've just googled the name of this Judge XXXXXXX and he appears to have been, up until a few years ago, the head of advocacy at the law firm who are acting for the claimant in my case....

I doubt they will be your Judge but if they are, you could raise it if you are brave.  Won't win you his favour though!

D_P_Dance

IIMU that a large number of County Court Judges started out as solicitors whereas Higher  court judges were usually barristers.  

emmajones1976

So he used to be involved, and hasnt been for years?

How on earth is that a conflict?

patient_dream

emmajones1976 said:

So he used to be involved, and hasnt been for years?

How on earth is that a conflict?

He may not do legal work for them any longer but they still might be mates ?

Coupon-mad

I agree, and i would not be happy.  Chances are it won't be him for the hearing.

rennes99

Hi all
Thanks for thoughts above. 

No idea if that Judge will be involved, but will have to cross that bridge when I come to it

One question I have in addition, is the forbidding sign argument so often seen with UKPC signs... where succinctly explained to the Judge how they fail on the offer/acceptance/consideration etc, have there ever been recent cases where a Judge has disagreed and said they are binding enforceable contracts?

I just cant believe a PPC would continue to rely on signage that has failed on so many occasions over the years?