Defence for Court claim (Gladstones representing) parking fine

amiemurphy_2

Le_Kirk said:

amiemurphy_2 said:

@Coupon-mad and @LDast could you advise me how to insert the transcripts into the defence. Do they need to be images or pdf files? Where can I obtain the transcripts from? Thank you 

See my profile (click on my user name) and then go to Threads and then the Judgments Link

Thank you! This can just be inserted as a link to the defence email? 

amiemurphy_2

Coupon-mad said:

amiemurphy_2 said:

@KeithP will this suffice? I have not cut and pasted the rest of the paragraphs from the defence template but will add them to the defence that I file. 

DEFENCE

1.  The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper but denies being the driver.

3. The defendant is not the sole user of the vehicle and cannot recall leaving the vehicle at this location.

 That's not the right version.

You seem to have missed my reply on your thread telling you which one to use, and missed what the Template Defence third paragraph says to do with a claim like yours.

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC'). The Defendant cannot even tell from the POC what they are said to have done wrong. The allocating Judge is respectfully invited to strike out the claim on that basis.

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out.

2. 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.

3. Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and CPMS v Akande would indicate the POC fails to comply with with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. 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 (transcript can be found using the link below) the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/2jef4c7bljyp6dse24p70/Judgments.pdf?rlkey=jsgusx180wzjz2f6er0436xw2&e=1&st=03x4tsbq&dl=0

4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would also indicate the POC fails to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in the cited case, HHJ Evans held that 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim' (transcript can be found using the link below). 

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/2jef4c7bljyp6dse24p70/Judgments.pdf?rlkey=jsgusx180wzjz2f6er0436xw2&e=1&st=03x4tsbq&dl=

5. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised, and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

Coupon-mad

Clearly you don't provide the link twice.  And this needs tweaking (I'm not elaborating how!):

"2. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment"

amiemurphy_2

Coupon-mad said:

Clearly you don't provide the link twice.  And this needs tweaking (I'm not elaborating how!):

"2. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment"

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC'). The Defendant cannot even tell from the POC what they are said to have done wrong. The allocating Judge is respectfully invited to strike out the claim on that basis.

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out.

2.The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now two persuasive Appeal judgments 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. 

3.Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and CPMS v Akande would indicate the POC fails to comply with with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. 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 (transcript can be found using the link below) the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR.

4.The second recent persuasive appeal judgment Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would also indicate the POC fails to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in the cited case, HHJ Evans held that 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim' (transcript can be found using the link below). 

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/2jef4c7bljyp6dse24p70/Judgments.pdf?rlkey=jsgusx180wzjz2f6er0436xw2&e=1&st=03x4tsbq&dl=0

Le_Kirk

amiemurphy_2 said:

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out.

2.The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is are now two persuasive Appeal .....

Suggested change above

1505grandad

Another suggestion:-

"....(in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one those seen on Appeal). 

amiemurphy_2

Le_Kirk said:

amiemurphy_2 said:

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out.

2.The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is are now two persuasive Appeal .....

Suggested change above

Amended as suggested. Would you say I could now file this? 

Le_Kirk

See suggestion by @1505grandad

amiemurphy_2

Le_Kirk said:

See suggestion by @1505grandad

Yes also amended suggestion from @1505grandad

amiemurphy_2

Hello. I have received my telephone mediation appointment for this Friday. I’m not sure what to expect and wondered if there is any advice for how to approach this appointment and what I should be prepared to say.