Civil Enforcement CCJ set aside. Wording help please.

Coupon-mad

Yes just the close-up if the sign.

This is your WS bundle for the hearing, signed and dated under a statement of truth, saved as a PDF and emailed to the local court and CEL. This is normal for these cases.

It's not late if there is more than 14 days before the hearing.  It's not a draft order. It's your WS in readiness for the hearing; just email it (cc in CEL) with a suitable subject line stating the claim number and time/date of hearing, and a sentence in the body of the email stating who you are & what you are attaching.

vincentvega27

Coupon-mad said:

Yes just the close-up if the sign.

This is your WS bundle for the hearing, signed and dated under a statement of truth, saved as a PDF and emailed to the local court and CEL. This is normal for these cases.

It's not late if there is more than 14 days before the hearing.  It's not a draft order. It's your WS in readiness for the hearing; just email it (cc in CEL) with a suitable subject line stating the claim number and time/date of hearing, and a sentence in the body of the email stating who you are & what you are attaching.

Great, as ever thank you so much for your amazing guidance.

Here is a link to the final redacted witness statement I´ll be doing, as I know a lot of people have been directed to this thread now. This is by far the best draft.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G9ULcEMg_Z-Y5mbhpwR37T6TBGYFzn1O/view?usp=sharing

Coupon-mad

Thanks!

Any chance you could either also share a Word version so people can copy & paste parts of it, or could you copy & paste the main WS wording here in a reply, to make it super easy for newbies?

cheers!

vincentvega27

Coupon-mad said:

Thanks!

Any chance you could either also share a Word version so people can copy & paste parts of it, or could you copy & paste the main WS wording here in a reply, to make it super easy for newbies?

cheers!

Absolutely, here´s the Google doc.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BJ7IQ_GqtZgE0CY1TKEOy0zshiuO4a-OHT1-qWmy6RQ/edit?usp=sharing

1505grandad

An observation  -  is it ok WS above contains:-

" The Defendant asserts that this Claim is based upon an agreement by conduct."

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80318034/#Comment_80318034

In the above post C-m stated:-

"I am not very keen on this bit, especially the words in my bold which almost reads like an admission:

The Defendant asserts that this Claim is based upon an agreement by conduct. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant has failed to specify how Contract terms have been breached by the conduct of the Defendant in the PoC."

Use this wording instead, IMHO:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80314298/#Comment_80314298

Coupon-mad

Ideally best to edit that. It reads as if the Defendant accepts that the claim has that basis.

vincentvega27

Coupon-mad said:

Ideally best to edit that. It reads as if the Defendant accepts that the claim has that basis.

I submitted the WS before I saw this comment, is this serious?

UncleThomasCobley

It's not serious as that is exactly what it says in the transcript of the appeal judgment.

"Where a claim is based upon an agreement by conduct, the particulars of claim must specify the conduct relied upon and state by whom, when and where the acts constituting the conduct were done."

However, for future reference, the wording has been changed to:

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.  Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.

A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4

Coupon-mad

vincentvega27 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Ideally best to edit that. It reads as if the Defendant accepts that the claim has that basis.

I submitted the WS before I saw this comment, is this serious?

No. Just my preferred wording.  There was that one sentence that I'm not keen on.  No biggie!

vincentvega27

Coupon-mad said:

vincentvega27 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Ideally best to edit that. It reads as if the Defendant accepts that the claim has that basis.

I submitted the WS before I saw this comment, is this serious?

No. Just my preferred wording.  There was that one sentence that I'm not keen on.  No biggie!

Well, had my hearing today. only took the judge about 20 minutes to throw it out on the signage. Didn´t make it past the first point. Another one bites the dust as they say. A bit upset I didn´t get to use all the new arguments we put together but great to see how helpful my witness statement it´s being to others.

It all ended pretty fast and I didn´t get the chance to mention costs, which were reserved from the set aside hearing. Can I peruse these by contacting my local CC or did I miss trick?

Thanks!