Judgement in Horizon Parking case

Clef_Mandango

First, thank you to all the people who must put a ton of hours into helping people in this forum for not much return.  
I never started a new thread on my case because I was embarrassed that I had adopted an IGNORE policy based on my own understanding.  The matter did proceed through MCOL and at that stage I lurked in here to learn a bit, cut and paste a bit and follow the ABC's as much as I could.  I submitted a defence, went through mediation and have been waiting for a court date.
Today I received this judgement.
I know this is good news, however Horizon have already withdrawn one MCOL for 'administrative error' that meant they had claimed £0.  They then corrected and had a second go.
What are the chances that they will amend the claim form in this case - including the terms breached - and commence new proceedings?
Can I celebrate yet?! 

Le_Kirk

Is it the same reference number that was previously withdrawn? IANAL but that looks well and truly struck out and the judge offered no opportunity to the claimant to correct it by submitting a revised claim!

Clef_Mandango

This is definitely the reference number that we proceeded on and which was defended.  The previous one was withdrawn in MCOL.

doubledotcom

That order brings the existing claim to an end. The claim has been struck out, so there are no live proceedings and the court will take no further steps in that case unless the claimant makes a further application.

However, that type of strike-out (for failing to plead any cause of action) is not a determination of the underlying dispute on its merits. It is a procedural disposal. Because of that, the order does not, by itself, permanently bar the claimant from trying again.

In principle the claimant has two possible routes. However, in the majority of these cases, they will not bother as the cost does not justify any possible return.

First, they could apply in the same case to set aside or vary the strike-out and ask the court to reinstate the claim and grant permission to amend the particulars. Whether they succeed depends on how promptly they act and whether the court considers it just to give them relief after a claim was struck out for being inadequately pleaded.

Second, they could issue a fresh claim for the same alleged parking event with properly pleaded particulars, provided they are still within the limitation period (typically six years for a simple contract claim in England and Wales). That said, a second claim is not risk-free for them. A defendant can argue that issuing again is an abuse of process, particularly if the claimant had a fair opportunity to plead the case properly the first time and failed to do so, or if the claimant ignored earlier prompts or warnings about the defects. Whether a court accepts an abuse argument is fact-specific, but it is a real point to raise if they try to re-litigate.

So, it is the end of that claim, but it does not automatically guarantee the matter can never be brought again. The practical position is that most of the time it ends the matter unless the claimant takes active steps to revive it or starts a new claim, and either of those steps can be resisted.

Coupon-mad

Clef_Mandango said:

This is definitely the reference number that we proceeded on and which was defended.  The previous one was withdrawn in MCOL.

Marvellous!

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST! 

Could you kindly unredact the name of the judge and the court please?

If we see the Order with that detail showing, I think this can be added to @Le_Kirk's judgments thread images!

Sounds like this court judge is cheerfully striking out Gladstones claims (and probably all CEL and all Moorside claims too).

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad said:

Clef_Mandango said:

This is definitely the reference number that we proceeded on and which was defended.  The previous one was withdrawn in MCOL.

Marvellous!

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST! 

Could you kindly unredact the name of the judge and the court please?

If we see the Order with that detail showing, I think this can be added to @Le_Kirk's judgments thread images!

Sounds like this court judge is cheerfully striking out Gladstones claims (and probably all CEL and all Moorside claims too).

As soon as the order is posted, I will be on it.

Clef_Mandango

Coupon-mad said:

Could you kindly unredact the name of the judge and the court please?

If we see the Order with that detail showing, I think this can be added to @Le_Kirk's judgments thread images!

Unredacted as requested.

Brief detail for encouragement.  This was a claim of overstaying in a Tesco car park.  Video camera controlled.  I am the registered keep but was not the driver.  Driver not named.  Penalty Notice shown as £70 on poor signage.  Gladstones acted on behalf of Horizon.  During telephone mediation I was informed that with interest the claim amount had risen to around £330 and they would not settle for less than £270.
Interestingly I had already made a written offer to settle for £70 prior to defending which had been rejected out of hand.  The mediator was very surprised they had not accepted based on his experience of these claims.

 doubledotcom said:

 the order does not, by itself, permanently bar the claimant from trying again.

Thank you for this clarification.  That will temper my celebration.
 

prowla

The courts really need to start fining the parking scammers for the continual flow of spurious cases.

Gr1pr

Well done 

But not a Penalty,  it was a private Parking Charge Notice,  PCN, an Invoice 

doubledotcom

Nice to see that Norwich judges are finally taking a stand on these poorly pleaded claims. I have a case coming up at the beginning of January that hopefully will have this judge consider it. As it is a BW Legal issued claim, the PoC were sufficient for it to scrape though and it was originally allocated as a telephone hearing at St Helens. The defendant submitted a complaint that it was unfair and the case was transferred to their home court, Norwich.

Coupon-mad

!

Unredacted as requested.

Brief detail for encouragement.  This was a claim of overstaying in a Tesco car park.  Video camera controlled.  I am the registered keep but was not the driver.  Driver not named.  Penalty Notice shown as £70 on poor signage.  Gladstones acted on behalf of Horizon.  During telephone mediation I was informed that with interest the claim amount had risen to around £330 and they would not settle for less than £270.
Interestingly I had already made a written offer to settle for £70 prior to defending which had been rejected out of hand.  The mediator was very surprised they had not accepted based on his experience of these claims.

 doubledotcom said:

 the order does not, by itself, permanently bar the claimant from trying again.

Thank you for this clarification.  That will temper my celebration.
 

Great, thankyou! Norwich.

Good judge. This can be added to @Le_Kirk's judgments thread images