Small claims court proceedings issued in wrong name

CFWJOB

He is indeed a lawyer- he's not practised professionally for years but he has certainly played on this to try and intimidate us.Aylesbury_Duck said:

lincroft1710 said:

An experienced lawyer who can't even get the correct name of the entity he's trying to sue?

Perhaps he's indulging too much in his hobby/investments/business.

 Indeed! Some of the more aggressive emails have been sent in the late evening...

CFWJOB

lincroft1710 said:

An experienced lawyer who can't even get the correct name of the entity he's trying to sue?

Yes- he has managed to issue the claim in the wrong business name and has also got the name of the witness wrong!  Yet another reason for me to think he's lost the plot here and is simply intent on having his day in court.

Okell

CFWJOB said:

... The fault was notified 10 years after the initial sale and we have already offered a full refund of the purchase value as an ex gratia payment...

Am I missing something here?

"5  Time limit for actions founded on simple contract.

An action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued."

How can a claim succeed if the fault was notified 10 years after the initial sale?

@CFWJOB -  what actually is the background to this?

[Edit:  and if this claim is statute barred you might want to consider whether you can still withdraw any offer you've made to the claimant]

mybestattempt

I recall a thread a while ago where the judge dealt with both the respondent's wrong name/entity issue and the claim at a hearing.

The judge made a direction for the papers to be amended by the court to the correct name of the respondent before going on to make a decision to refuse the claim. This was a permissible way to dispose of the claim fairly and efficiently.

If the claim had been struck out simply because the respondent's name was wrong, the claimant could gone away then brought a new claim using the correct name which would have taken up more of the court's administrative and judicial time.

Hopefully, this case will go the same way leaving the "experienced lawyer" with nowhere to turn.

gollum007

If he's an experienced lawyer, remind him of Arkell v. Pressdram.

screech_78

Okell said:

CFWJOB said:

... The fault was notified 10 years after the initial sale and we have already offered a full refund of the purchase value as an ex gratia payment...

Am I missing something here?

"5  Time limit for actions founded on simple contract.

An action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued."

How can a claim succeed if the fault was notified 10 years after the initial sale?

@CFWJOB -  what actually is the background to this?

[Edit:  and if this claim is statute barred you might want to consider whether you can still withdraw any offer you've made to the claimant]

I was also wondering what I was missing. 

I don’t understand why the OP is even engaging considering the length of time since the sale. 

CFWJOB

Okell said:

CFWJOB said:

... The fault was notified 10 years after the initial sale and we have already offered a full refund of the purchase value as an ex gratia payment...

Am I missing something here?

"5  Time limit for actions founded on simple contract.

An action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued."

How can a claim succeed if the fault was notified 10 years after the initial sale?

@CFWJOB -  what actually is the background to this?

[Edit:  and if this claim is statute barred you might want to consider whether you can still withdraw any offer you've made to the claimant]

You're not missing anything!  It is well over 6 years, so outside the statutory period.  We offered a full refund of the original purchase price as a goodwill gesture.  
Our customer feels that this is wholly inadequate- he reckons we owe him the current market value on the basis that the original sale had an implied guarantee. We have politely disagreed and there is nothing in our invoice or T&C's to suggest such a guarantee.

CFWJOB

gollum007 said:

If he's an experienced lawyer, remind him of Arkell v. Pressdram.

He's already shown himself to be aggressive and litigious so I don't wish to antagonise him any further! We've taken care to remain scrupulously polite and professional all the way through this process. 

CFWJOB

To clarify- I made a formal response to the claim to say
1. This claim is against a non-existent entity
2. This claim is out of time

I assumed that someone would review the submissions and be able to make a quick decision in my favour. But instead it's been scheduled for a hearing in person. 

mybestattempt

CFWJOB said:

To clarify- I made a formal response to the claim to say
1. This claim is against a non-existent entity
2. This claim is out of time

I assumed that someone would review the submissions and be able to make a quick decision in my favour. But instead it's been scheduled for a hearing in person. 

Just my thoughts as this was the sale of a bottle of laying down wine. 

If it at the point of sale it was meant or expected to lay for 5 to 10 years, on the time limit point might he argue the cause action, that is, the breach of contract, started within 6 years of the claim?

I'm thinking it may have lain for say 9 years before he he opened it and found it faulty so he will contend that's the date of the breach of contract.

As I say just my thoughts, I'm not a wine expert.