Court: Give defendant more time?

LDoc

Hello, I have brought a complaint against my former University for aspects of course provision and a poorly complaint's system when seeking to retrain, and sought a return of my tuition fees. This has dragged on since November 2019, and I've filed a claim. The University legal representative did not try to engage with the substantive matters in the Letter Before Claim, but instead sought to assert that it was an abuse of process not to have used third-party arbitration with the OIAHE. I refuted this, and invited them to settle. The legal representative acknowledged that the complaint ('as a good will gesture'!) could go back to the University complaints' team, though nothing was done. Two months later, the University has passed my claim to a solicitor's firm. The firm suggests it's a complex case that shouldn't be going to the MCOL (another abuse of claim suggestion), but then contacted me to ask if I would "kindly" agree to a 28-day extension under CPR 15.5 so they could properly file a defence. They have only until Monday, as it stands. I'm really curious about whether it would be ill-advised not to grant this? The University has had all the time in the world, and waited 18 months before even sending it to their in-house solicitor. It was their decision to send the claim to a solicitor with no knowledge of the case. I owe them nothing; but, equally, I don't want to be frowned upon by a judge hearing the case. For the absence of doubt, the complexity was well-known to the University, who could deal with it themselves, and I have single-handedly dealt with the matter myself - and I am no solicitor. 

Any help would be marvellous! Thank you!

cmthephoenix

"could properly file a defence. They have only until Monday, as it stands. I'm really curious about whether it would be ill-advised not to grant this? "

Is this what you're asking? I'm not a legal expert but from a human nature point of view I would say after 18 months yes absolutely grant them a few more weeks. The more an oustside observer sees your reasonableness the more sympathetic they are likely to be. There is a caveat to this though, if you are worried you don't have much of a case then the extra time (that there may have been no legal observing of so far) will give them more ability to construct arguments against you case. Not agreeing to 3rd party tends not to be a good look as they should normally be relatively neutral in a dispute.

LDoc

Thanks for your reply. It is 3-years since I made the initial complaint. It rested with the University, who only passed it to their own legal advisor a few months ago when I sent them a Letter Before Claim. They decided to send their defence to an outside solicitors' firm who know nothing about the case. I actually have a very strong case, in my opinion, and they've just played games. They have already filed their defence, in which they said it is a complicated case that is an abuse of process. So they need more time, they say. By agreeing to it, I believe I am walking into their strategy to undermine the claim in its entirety. Having stated they will defend the claim in full, they now have time to prepare their case before trial. They don't need more time at this point. But I don't want to dismiss them out of hand if a judge is likely to frown on it. 

Marcon

LDoc said:

Thanks for your reply. It is 3-years since I made the initial complaint. It rested with the University, who only passed it to their own legal advisor a few months ago when I sent them a Letter Before Claim. They decided to send their defence to an outside solicitors' firm who know nothing about the case. I actually have a very strong case, in my opinion, and they've just played games. They have already filed their defence, in which they said it is a complicated case that is an abuse of process. So they need more time, they say. By agreeing to it, I believe I am walking into their strategy to undermine the claim in its entirety. Having stated they will defend the claim in full, they now have time to prepare their case before trial. They don't need more time at this point. But I don't want to dismiss them out of hand if a judge is likely to frown on it. 

Forgive me for making the point, but most claimants believe they have a strong case - but that doesn't mean they all do. It's impossible to comment meaningfully on your situation when there are, very sensibly, no facts at all in your post about what happened and very little detail on the processes you've followed thus far.

All parties are expected to make every effort to avoid ending up in court (i.e. trying to settle beforehand), and it's not clear why you felt that the OIAHE wasn't an option. You might do well to get some proper (paid for) advice, not least to check the extent to which you are laying yourself open (if at all) to having costs awarded against you if you lose.

SiliconChip

One key issue that you seem to be overlooking is that shortly after your complaint was raised the country was plunged into a pandemic which hit universities very hard indeed, and they are still trying to recover from that impact even now. Their responsibilities to thousands of current students and staff no doubt had much higher priority than dealing with a single person. If you want a resolution I'd suggest you cut them a bit of slack and allow the extra time to be taken.

TBagpuss

Presumably if you don't agree and then apply for Judgement in default they may then apply to set aside any Judgement - I am not sure how a court would see it, or indeed whether they would be able to make an urgent application for an extension on Monday if you don't agree, in which case they might seek costs.
I agree that they seem to have left things to the last minute and you don't have an obligation to accommodate them, especially as this is a large organsiation, not an private individual with little understanding of business ro the law. 

LDoc

TBagpuss said:

Presumably if you don't agree and then apply for Judgement in default they may then apply to set aside any Judgement - I am not sure how a court would see it, or indeed whether they would be able to make an urgent application for an extension on Monday if you don't agree, in which case they might seek costs.
I agree that they seem to have left things to the last minute and you don't have an obligation to accommodate them, especially as this is a large organsiation, not an private individual with little understanding of business ro the law. 

Thanks, TBagpuss. The latter resonates with my thinking. The University had no need to outsource the case to a big solicitor's firm when it was already being dealt with by the in-house solicitor. It seems to be postering, and on this occasion they have come up short in seeking an extension on behalf of the University. I have written a two page, hopefully considered, reply to them.

LDoc

SiliconChip said:

One key issue that you seem to be overlooking is that shortly after your complaint was raised the country was plunged into a pandemic which hit universities very hard indeed, and they are still trying to recover from that impact even now. Their responsibilities to thousands of current students and staff no doubt had much higher priority than dealing with a single person. If you want a resolution I'd suggest you cut them a bit of slack and allow the extra time to be taken.

Indeed, I'm a University academic. It's been rough. I went through all of their internal procedures, and only the final judgment was during the Covid pandemic - and, then, only because it wasn't delivered within the timeframes of their own appeals' process. It doesn't have a bearing on the case now, thank goodness.