Confirmation of Striking Out the Claim and Breach of Unless Order (Claim No. XXXXXXXX)
Dear Court Staff Member,
I am writing to bring to the court’s attention the Claimant’s breach of the Unless Order dated XX XX XXXX, which required the hearing fee to be paid by 4.00pm on 5 January 2025. The Claimant failed to meet this deadline, and neither did they apply for relief from sanctions. While they subsequently contacted the court on 7 January to request permission to pay late, their payment was not registered until 9 January, four days after the deadline.
As per the clear terms of the Unless Order, the claim stands struck out with effect from 5 January 2025, and the hearing should be vacated. The Defendant is entitled to rely on the first Order, which contained no provision for discretion, late payment or reinstatement without proper procedure.
I respectfully draw the court’s attention to the following points:
1. Breach of the Unless Order:
The Claimant’s failure to comply with the Unless Order and its deadline automatically renders the claim struck out. While the Claimant subsequently paid on 9 January, this was outside the specified deadline, and there has been no application for relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9, nor has any N244 application been served upon the Defendant.
2. Binding Authority from Case Law:
The Supreme Court case of Barton v Wright Hassall LLP ([2018] UKSC 12) establishes that litigants in person, whether Claimant or Defendant, are required to comply with court rules and orders. Breaching an order without seeking relief from sanctions is not excused by a litigant’s unrepresented status.
3. Application of the Overriding Objective:
Fairness, proportionality, and promptness in administering justice under the Overriding Objective of the CPR must be upheld. Allowing this already-struck-out claim to proceed without the Claimant applying for relief undermines these principles and prejudices the Defendant.
4. Proper Procedure Required for Reinstatement:
A struck-out claim cannot simply be revived informally. If the Claimant wishes to seek reinstatement, the proper procedure is to file an N244 application and serve it on the Defendant. Such an application is subject to scrutiny under the Denton principles. Without this, the claim remains struck out.
To ensure fairness, I kindly request the court to confirm that the claim remains struck out in accordance with the Unless Order, as no valid application for relief has been made by the Claimant. Should the Claimant attempt to revive the claim without following proper procedure, I reserve the right to challenge such action and apply to set aside any order that reinstates the claim without due process.
I have copied the Claimant in on this email for transparency and request that they inform the court immediately if they have made any application that the Defendant is unaware of.
I look forward to the court’s confirmation on this matter.
Regards,
