Court Case for unloading bulky furniture outside own (rented) residence

UnloadTheShelves

As for leaving quoting and appending PCM v Bull to my potential Supplementary WS, is this an ok paragraph for the end of my WS, before the statement of truth, please?

Supplementary Witness Statement:

The Defendant reserves the right to file a supplementary Witness Statement should he feel he needs to submit more points to this WS should the Claimant file his own Supplementary WS; or should I, the Defendant, feel that I can provide other persuasive arguments for the defence of this unjustified claim, or for it to be struck out.

Coupon-mad

I wouldn't add that but it does no harm. It is fine that the heading says Bromley. Hopefully the C will send their rep to the wrong court!

UnloadTheShelves

Oh I will do what you would do then, and leave it out, thanks!

I would love that hope of the rep not turning up too, but annoyingly  this guy mentions in one of his first paragraphs that the hearing is to take place at the RCJ ... I just didn't know if he didn't use the wrong heading. 

The legal assistant himself informed me and the court that GS won't be coming to the hearing, but others have warned me that someone will turn up anyway.... I just hope that they will have no deeper knowledge of the case fingers crossed!

UnloadTheShelves

I just re read the claimants WS and noticed that his para numbering is totally awful! Probably proving how very cut and paste this whole claim is? 

Is it something I should mention in my WS and could be used to my advantage? 

To be specific:

He has numbers para 1-31 and then a sudden jump to para 39. Then it goes from para 39-45 but after the last para 45 is suddenly one more para number 32 😳!!

Do I add a para to my own WS about this? 

UnloadTheShelves

Also could someone please translate this for me into an everyday English, I really don't understand it (English is not my first language, but also this is a legal jargon that's totally beyond me):

Para 29:

"The Defendant avers the Claimant's Particulars of Claim are deficient, however despite this the Claimant notes the Defendant has been able to produce a substantive Defence. In this regard, the Claimant believes the Defendant has not suffered any prejudice".

UnloadTheShelves

And one more (sorry!) 

Just like I'm quoting appeal cases that I also append as exhibits, should the Claimant not do the same? Shall I question this in my own WS? 

In his para 40, he writes:

"The Defendant entered a contract with the Claimant when parking on the Site. The terms of this contract being displayed within signs on the Site. As the Defendant parked the Vehicle in breach of the terms of this contract, a charge was incurred which the Claimant is entitled to recover. Therefore, the cause of action in this matter is breach of contract. A decision of the Supreme Court made it clear that the charges are not penal nor do they have to be reflective of the parking operator's loss".

What is this Supreme Court decision?? Should he not quote it with the case law number and append it too? Is this something I can use to my advantage? 

Thank you! 

Trainerman

"The Defendant avers the Claimant's Particulars of Claim are deficient, however despite this the Claimant notes the Defendant has been able to produce a substantive Defence. In this regard, the Claimant believes the Defendant has not suffered any prejudice".

Meaning that the Claimant Defendant has said that the particulars of claim are not good enough. Even if that is so, the claimant points out that the Defendant has been able to write a substantial defence. so the Claimant says that even if the PoC are deficient, the Defendant has not been disadvantaged.

*Edit to correct above

UnloadTheShelves

Thank you Trainerman. Please forgive me, I still don't understand what this actually means, as in what it is supposed to say and why are they mentioning it? Does the guy who wrote the WS essentially admit that the Claim itself is a bit rubbish? That it doesn't really have grounds?

In my view his own WS is rubbish as he couldn't even get the numbering right!

I do feel like I have been disadvantaged, as these people have legal background I have literally none, zero!

Trainerman

Essentially, they are not exactly admitting that but stating that the defendant has not been disadvantaged even if they (the PoC ) are poor.

Don't worry about not having a legal background. There are plenty of people on here who can help.

Fruitcake

The defendant has been disadvantaged because instead of defending the claim for a single point, they have had to guess and cover lots of different points.

For example, if the claim was for breaching the terms and conditions on the signs, but didn't specify which terms they referred to, the defendant would have to produce a defence against every single term on the signs, which could include in some cases,

not paying 
an overstay
not displaying a ticket
not correctly entering a registration mark
not parking in a designated bay
parking a blue car in a bay meant for red cars
failing to stand on one leg and sing the national anthem
etcetera

In your case, you cannot in all honesty say what the terms were that they say were breached because they haven't been specified, so you have had to go to the trouble of challenging every possible term or condition shown on the signs.