Phase 1: CCJ Removed. Phase 2: Claim Discontinued. Phase 3: Costs.

Coupon-mad

Point 33. What does the white book state?

We  don't know verbatim, because we haven't got access to it.  But we know there is an annotation that leaves the door open for costs for unreasonable conduct, and so that is standard in the template defence.

GeorgeFormby

Coupon-mad said:

Point 33. What does the white book state?

We  don't know verbatim, because we haven't got access to it.  But we know there is an annotation that leaves the door open for costs for unreasonable conduct, and so that is standard in the template defence.

Ok thanks. The way it was ended with a colon suggested there was text to follow so thought it may have been left off.

Harvez63

@Coupon-mad do you think I should update item 7 as per @GeorgeFormby kindly commented on the page before?

GeorgeFormby

With regards my earlier point about the White Book I've just seen another defence whereby:-

Attention is drawn specifically to the (often-seen from this industry) possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not normally apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))."   

@Harvez63 that needs to be added as above, I think?

Coupon-mad

Good spot.  It is meant to be as above.

Harvez63

thank you @GeorgeFormby

Le_Kirk

GeorgeFormby said:

7.   The Claimant's conduct has been wholly unreasonable throughout this process and caused sleepless nights and illness from the stress this has caused. Unreasonable behaviour ranges From from increasing the costs aggressively and unfairly at the start, to threatening bailiffs and CCJs. The Claimant sought and obtained a default CCJ against the Defendant on April 2022,  for which they eventually signed a consent order to set aside the day before the court hearing (one year later) and admitted that they improperly served the claim. This was despite the Defendant notifying them of their mistake months before signing the consent order, to which The the Claimant denied.  Not only this, The the Claimant has failed to meet the court mandated timescales since, both for  for both reserving re-serving this claim, and paying the costs ordered. The Claimant has acted with a complete disregard to everyone. 

I would further adjust as above. Reserving means something different to re-serving, whether or not it makes any difference to  judge I don't know but nice to be correct?

B789

Le_Kirk said:

The Claimant has acted with a complete disregard to everyone. 

How about changing that last sentence to: "The Claimant has acted with complete disregard to the Court and the Defendant."

Le_Kirk

Wicked!       

Harvez63

What a team, I'll just update and re-post. Again, I dont care if I repeat myself; thank you