DCB Legal Claim Form Defence Help Needed Please

Fullofgrace

Hi again. I now have a court claim form for for the second one, which is exactly the same thing, both happened within a week of the other.

My question is, when preparing the defence, should I refer to the previous one or should I just treat it independent of the other but use exactly the same defence as before given it is exactly the same situation - in that both fines were responded to at the same time and no response given etc.

In terms of update for the first one, I haven't heard anything back and I think the 28 days for their response might have passed.

Thank you

Coupon-mad

Search the forum for

Estoppel defence Henderson

Fullofgrace

Hi, I have now received a N180 Directions Questionnaire for the first claim. Is the statement below fine for my defence of the second claim:

3. The Court is invited to take note that the Claimant has made a previous claim to the Court Business Centre (reference xxxxx), for a separate PCN issued to the defendant within a week of the other under exactly the same circumstances, and with substantially identical particulars, for the same cause of action. The Claimant will have had full knowledge of all PCNs at all stages due to the date of all claims being made well after any of the PCNs were issued. The Defendant can see no reason why the Claimant was unable to issue one claim for all PCNs thus saving the courts, themselves and the Defendant a lot of distress, time and hassle.  The Defendant sees this manner of issuing of two separate claims as an outright abuse of the civil litigation process and the Defendant will kindly ask that the court dismiss this claim under ‘Cause of Action estoppel’.

The courts may estop a second claim where the cause of action is substantially the same and attention is drawn to the following case:

1. Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 3 All ER 41 the court noted that cause of action estoppel “…applies where a cause of action in a second action is identical to a cause of action in the first, the latter having been between the same parties or their privies and having involved the same subject matter.”
2. In Henderson -v- Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313 the court noted the following:
   (i) when a matter becomes subject to litigation, the parties are required to advance their whole case;
   (ii) the Court will not permit the same parties to re-open the same subject of litigation regarding matters which should have been advanced in the earlier litigation, but were not owing to negligence, inadvertence, or error;
   (iii) this bar applies to all matters, both those on which the Court determined in the original litigation and those which would have been advanced if the party in question had exercised ''reasonable diligence''.

Referring to the POC: The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant and does not accept that a contravention occurred on the alleged date and as such the rest of the particulars of claim are denied….

I intend to use the same sentences as the previous defence.

Thanks

Coupon-mad

Yes that's good!

Fullofgrace

Thank you so much!!!