2 identical cases, First was won already, 2nd was reinstated and the judge’s order is confusing me

toooldfornonesense

EDITED For Clarity

Rereading this it might be confusing so rewrote it, and kept the original text

The Lay Of The Land:
Property Owner with the right to park in their deeds
Parking spaces are common parts, not allocated to properties
Rights are between the Landowner and the property owner
Landowner asked PCM to supply parking management services to prevent non residents from parking cars and abusing the space
Signs say if you park, you accept the T&C’s - Obviously I want to refuse, don’t need to accept as I have property rights to park but they say they have to
Property owner has permits from PCM, the low cost to buy one far outweighs the hassle of a PCN, despite not needing one



The alleged contravention:
Permit not displayed in the dash once
Permit not displayed in the dash a second time

The PCN and drama that ensued:
PCN raised, followed the newbies thread and advice
Claim raised for both instances of no permits being shown, few months apart
Note that the PCN, POC, LBA and most of the WS are almost identical

Events shown side by side in chronological order

1:                                 Claim 2 fee deadline date, fee was not paid, struck out
2: Claim 1 heard and won, had attended court, claimant did not
3:                                 Claim 2 Claimant WS sent to Defendant, dated the day after above claim

                                    WS received 5 days later in post

4:                                 Claim 2 struck out confirmation letter from the CC

5:                                 Claim 2 Claimant emails court, I don’t know about it

6:          “ Trip booked, duration 4 days”

7: Claim 1 confirmation letter from CC, dated for hearing date

8:                                  Claim 2, CC sends letter where judge order says the case is reinstated.
                                     Date is already set for the hearing.  No mention of when WS needs
                                     submitting. Judge orders claimant emails court defendant the email he
                                     received to the defendant within 3 days of receipt of the order
                                     N244 can be submitted within 7 days of receiving the order

9:            “Trip taken, total time 6 days”



Primary Concern:
Can I email the judge, like the claimant and tell them there is a case that already  defends this?


Other Concerns

1. Is it possible to vacate a hearing date, due to travel being booked before reinstatement was known?

2.  What form should a consent to vacate email to the claimant, take?

3. When can I claim the email was not sent to me from the claimant, as ordered by the judge?

4. If the email is not forthcoming, what are my options?











PREVIOUS POST FOR REFERENCE IF NEEDED

Got an odd one here for you chaps
(Trying to keep the specifics vague, so please excuse me if it gets complicated)

The short version:

Had 2 claims, one the first one heard and assumed it set a precedent.

2nd claim was struck out due to non payment, court sent me a letter confirming as such

Got a letter back saying the struck out claim has been reinstated after the claimant directly emailed the court, 3 weeks after the won case (they didn’t attend and got letter confirmation of their loss 5 weeks after the hearing where I won)

Letter doesn’t say anything about witness statements, so wondering if the one I’d missed supplying (due to the 2 claims being almost identical) would work against me and how I can guard against that?

A few days after the court confirmed I’d won, claimant asked for bank details in acknowledgment of the order so they do acknowledge my win.




My concern:

Will I be able to stick in an updated Witness Statement since I’ve got a precedent set by the first case I won?

The reinstatement letter advises this will be listed for a final hearing on the first open date, directs the claimant to send me the email they sent that got the claim reinstated.

No mention of if I have to send in a witness statement or if the one I’d already sent (and suspect missed) would be the only representation I have.

The rock and hard place question:

Have 2 days before I run out of time to get up an N244 with the appropriate boxes ticked.

Hoping there’s some love around for an old ex Pepipoo member from back in the day





Background I’ve typed up before I head out to get some printer ink to get an N244 and WS printed out in triplicate :-(

Had to claims 3 ng months apart, let’s call them A & B.  They are identical bar that one quotes an NTK and the other leans on PoFA.  The documentation, particular of claims and even the responses are almost like for like.

Claim A was tried in a hearing and I won on merit as well as claimant failing some CPR points, which the judge mentioned.  I’d assumed the precedent was set as this was the first case to be heard and is chronologically the correct one to go first

I attended but Parking company didn’t.  We both got the letter confirming dismissal some 6 weeks after the hearing

! Week later the claimant solicitors send me a letter saying we just got the order, give us bank details for your costs.

Claim B was struck out due to non payment of the court fee, 2 weeks after claim A was heard and I’d won.

Got the letter 2 weeks after Claim A was heard.  Then 3 weeks later was told the claim was to be reinstated after the claimant directly emailed the court with something

Judge ordered that they send this to me, and the letter states an N244 to vary / set aside etc has a 7 day window.

I’ve not received this “email” as the judge ordered this be sent within 3 days of receipt of the order.

I really don’t want any hearing to take place where I can’t present documentation that helps me cement the win

Any advice would be really helpful

toooldfornonesense

I forgot to ask, I read somewhere the SRA frowns upon identical claims being raised when they could be combined into one claim.  Couldn’t find the thread where this was mentioned on here and wondered if that could help, assuming I can get the opportunity to present evidence
(Would’ve edited the post, but the post count is low so assume edit’s don’t kick until double digits

Duke1999

toooldfornonesense said:

I forgot to ask, I read somewhere the SRA frowns upon identical claims being raised when they could be combined into one claim.  Couldn’t find the thread where this was mentioned on here and wondered if that could help, assuming I can get the opportunity to present evidence
(Would’ve edited the post, but the post count is low so assume edit’s don’t kick until double digits

The following explains the Henderson Vs Henderson multiple claims.

Henderson v. Henderson (1843) is an important case in English law that established the "Henderson rule" or the "Henderson v. Henderson estoppel", which is related to the concept of res judicata. The key principle derived from the case is that a party cannot raise, in subsequent litigation, claims or issues that could and should have been raised in earlier proceedings between the same parties.

Key Facts of the Case:

The case involved a dispute over the administration of an estate.

The plaintiff (Mr. Henderson) sought to bring new claims in a second lawsuit that could have been raised in the earlier litigation.

The Principle (Henderson Rule):

The Henderson rule asserts that all claims and issues related to a dispute should be brought forward at the earliest possible opportunity. If a party fails to do so without good reason, they may be barred (estopped) from raising those claims later. This prevents "piecemeal litigation" and ensures that disputes are settled fully and finally in the initial proceedings.

The ruling was based on public policy considerations:

Finality of litigation: It’s in the interest of justice and fairness that disputes should be resolved definitively, preventing multiple lawsuits on the same issue.

Judicial economy: Courts aim to avoid the inefficient use of judicial resources through repeated lawsuits over the same matter.

Avoidance of injustice: It prevents unfairness to the defendant, who would otherwise be forced to defend against multiple or fragmented legal actions.

Defenses Related to Henderson v. Henderson:

In a case where a Henderson v. Henderson estoppel is raised as a defense, a party might argue:

1. Res Judicata: The matter has already been decided in a previous case, and it cannot be re-litigated.

2. Abuse of Process: The claimant is misusing the court process by bringing new claims that should have been raised earlier.

3. Lack of Good Reason: The claimant had no valid justification for failing to raise the issue in the earlier proceedings.

However, the defense might not apply if:

There is new evidence that was not available in the first litigation.

The party had a valid reason for not raising the claims in the earlier case.

Modern Developments: The courts apply the Henderson rule with some flexibility. It is not applied in an overly strict manner if justice requires that a new issue be heard. The rule is balanced with the right of parties to have access to the courts, especially where new facts or exceptional circumstances arise after the initial proceedings.

In summary, Henderson v. Henderson remains a cornerstone of civil procedure law, promoting fairness by preventing repetitive litigation on the same subject matter.

There are other more recent case law if you search for it.

Coupon-mad

@toooldfornonesense

STOP!
You are not filling in a N244 to object to that order. There's nothing wrong with the order.

Wait for your hearing date then there will be time to file & serve a WS & evidence.

Which PPC & solicitor?

toooldfornonesense

@Duke1999 - thank you for the Henderson VS Henderson info.  I’m reading up more in case I can’t use it due to some other case law.

@Coupon-mad - I did stop, thankfully.  After your message I’ve now reread the actual letter I’ve misread this
The text that got me was this…

”The matter shall be listed for a final hearing in the first open date after 28 days Namely on

(There is a date, I’ve replaced it with DMY, Day etc, to keep it generic unless necessary)

<Day> <DD/MM/YYYY> at <HH:MM>

with a time estimate of 90 minutes as a face to face hearing”

I read that line thinking the date of the hearing was going to be the date quoted on the letter, NOT that it WILL be listed for a hearing.




What’s getting my goat is not knowing what the claimant emailed into the court that would make the judge reinstate.


The thing I’m unsure of is where the order says “the claimant must <perform an action to send something> to the defendant within 4 days of receipt of this order” 

The solicitors concerned always take full advantage of, what I inferred as, the 5 day service time when they send or receive anything.

Does anyone have any knowledge about how the courts calculate a “date of receipt”?

Coupon-mad

That IS the date of the hearing.

Do your WS and evidence this week.

Umkomaas

Coupon-mad - I did stop, thankfully.  After your message I’ve now reread the actual letter I’ve misread this

You seem to have also missed this request from @Coupon-mad:

Which PPC & solicitor?

Perhaps have another go?

toooldfornonesense

Coupon-mad said:

That IS the date of the hearing.

Do your WS and evidence this week.

Thank you, I’ve got about half way through it and will get it done asap.

Also P.C.M. & Moorside

If a date for hearing is set, is any consideration given to time that a defendant may be out of the country, especially since plans were made 1 month after the case was struck out?

I apologise if there is well known protocol.

The other point I’d raised about timings, i.e. the order for the claimant to email the defendant X days after receipt of the order. - I guess this doesn’t come into play in the mind of the court.

toooldfornonesense

IGNORE - Post combined with the one above now editing option located

Coupon-mad

Get consent to change it NOW:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81669180/#Comment_81669180

toooldfornonesense

Edited for brevity, previous post kept for reference

@Coupon-mad

I’ll search for the format to take BUT can I cite the travel as the reason?

CNBC didn’t allocate the date, the judge did in the order and that was the first I knew

The travel was booked before the judge sent the order and after communications from the CC confirming the claim was struck out

Lastly, if the claimant can send an email that managed to get the judge to resurrect a struck out case, why am I not able to email the judge too and advise them there is already a case that was won for the same exact issue?









PREVIOUS POST, FOR REFERENCE

Moorside won’t consent before the deadline, assuming this is to save the £123 fee.  Paying isn’t the issue as I suspect I can reclaim it given the reasonable circumstances and evidence I can show I attempted to proceed in good faith

Also the contact centre advise the keep recordings to the contact centre where they told me that it’d take 48 hours (call was on Monday) so I can prove I tried to notify the court due time, after seeking advice from the contact centre AND I have emails to the court where I fired in the request

The email body to the court with the N244 form is shown below…

“Please find attached a signed and completed N244 form to vary a court order

The dates provided in the order sent by the court, clash with long haul overseas travel that was booked when this claim was struck out and the court had sent official documentation confirming as such

Request is to reschedule so as to ensure both parties have the same amount of time to submit witness statements 1 month before the hearing date since the 1 month deadline for submission clashes with the travel dates.

Details of the situation are in the evidence box section of the N244 form attached

My number is <SOMETHING> and can take a call to provide payment, however I am hopping onto a bus past the court and will pop in to see if I can pay the fee on site

If on site payment is not possible and I can save the trip, please do consider letting me know asap

Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help this request along as quickly as possible”


When I walked into the court and asked to pay, they couldn’t do it the front desk and asked me to call a number.
Chap on the other end looked up my email and found it but said they wouldn’t get round to it for 3 weeks due to a backlog.

The chap told me to pay £123 via Postal Order, print the N244 in triplicate and then get it into the post box


The body of the N244 is below, with sections masked…

Sequential Order of the dates are mentioned as…

DATE1 - Originally Won Identical Case
DATE2 - Claimant email date
DATE3 - Trip Booked
DATE4 - Date of Order
DATE5 - eMail sent to both court email domains
DATE6 - Hearing Date


“Prior to DATE4, the claim was struck out due to non payment.

Overseas long haul travel was booked on DATE3 as court had sent documentation stating that one case was dismissed and the other was struck out.

The case heard on DATE1 was known to be dismissed as the judge had provided verbal confirmation at the end of the hearing, therefore booking travel was possible without risk

Claimant emailed the court directly on DATE2

Court order was raised on DATE4 to reinstate the struck out case and the hearing date was DATE6. 

Given that normally the witness statement timelines are a month before the hearing, this coincides on the date that the defendant flies home

As of the DATE5, this would provide the defendant with 8 clear days to prepare all the documentation and submit it.

The claimant would have 12 days, which would mean the defendant and claimant in the case have different timeframes for this step in the process

Request of a reschedule of the hearing so as to ensure both parties have the same time window to proceed in the court process and the defendant is not at a disadvantage, due to circumstances outside their control and actions being taken not only on good faith but official communications from <THE> County Court.

Evidence can be supplied to substantiate travel plans or if courts have access to UK security databases that show UK citizen travel outside the country, this can be verified independently”


Now here’s the kicker, I emailed in the below after this thread started up…

” Please take this email as a request to not pursue the N244 submission.
I misread the order as I had thought the date had been set for a hearing on the 12/11/25, not that it WILL be set
Apologies for any inconvenience caused
Many thanks”

Steps to proceed with my limited understanding

1. Print the N244 in triplicate, get a PO and get it into the postbox
2. Email Moorside for consent then get the hearing vacated
3. Something else

For speed, I suspect option 1 is the way to go, and claim for the fees afterwards but happy to defer to the far smarter people on this forum on their thoughts