Can defendant in Small-Claims court charge for ''time spent preparing for trial''??

*UPDATE*

Hello just to update this topic, there have been a few developments, which if anyone on here can help me process the significance of/way I should address them, that would be much appreciated.

*The hearing for my application to have the default-judgement set aside has been postponed until the date of the trial (due to a calendar clash on the defendant's side), but so that trial slot has been extended by 4-hours now.


The defendant has filed her witness-statement, however a few aspects of what's she's saying now vary from her prior particulars of claim-

1. She claims that the 2nd half of her claim against me isn't a defamation matter, but yet uses the word 'slander' in her own witness statement as her accusation as to what I apparently did.

2. She admits that she was working as a self-employed contractor + on a zero-hours contract (therefore has no entitlement to be offered future ongoing work by that company + no recourse if they cease to offer her work), But still claims that I should be liable for her 'missed out in earnings' for the duration between when she left that company and started working for a new company.

3. She admits in her statement that she voluntarily left the job with that company of her own accord even (so wasn't sacked/terminated), and that her date if leaving there was over 4+ months after I filed the court-claim against her/ceased all interaction with her, But still claims I am liable for her having quit her job.

4. She admits that I never actually mentioned her name in any tweet or message which I sent to anyone, and so I never actually disclosed her identity publicly as being the person who scammed me, but claims that her colleagues/managers worked it out themselves over the next few weeks/months.

5. She claims that the reason she became so unhappy working in that job for that company is because her colleagues & managers there were cold/unfriendly towards her, But claims that I am to blame for that.

6. The company which she worked for is a PLC (so listed on stock exchange/has shareholders/has to comply with various business-transparency regulations such as display information about the company to the public).
The company has various divisions, operating under various brand names, but ultimately all are merely subsidiaries of the PLC.

One of these brands however, the one which the defendant worked for, stated false information in their website's T&Cs that they were owned by a different company (one which was dissolved 5+ years ago when it was taken-over by this new company), and so was a PLC display misleading/false information about their business structure on their own website.
So I contacted them (via a tweet) and just enquired "why they were claiming to be owned by xxxx, when they were actually owned by xxxx PLC, registered business address xxxx?"

Whilst this had nothing whatsoever to do with the defendant, was merely an enquiry of a due-diligence nature from me to a commercial PLC company, the defendant has now fixated most of her statement around that, claiming that I put her/all her colleagues in danger by publicly stating that address, that her managers were apparently furious about this disclosure, that all her colleagues were terrified they would now be stalked & attacked by crazed-fans and so needed to be walked to their cars after work... ect, And so this was the main reason why all her colleagues & managers treated her badly.

The PLC company themself though publicly state that address on their own website in their 'contact us' section, plus publicly list that as their registered business address... So not some kind of classified secret! *_*
However she is claiming that me asking the company why they are listing false information as their registered business details, rather than the correct publicly available company info, put her in danger + resulted her being treated badly by her colleagues & managers, which led her to her decision to quit working there (4months later).

7. She states in her witness statement that she now only wants to claim for 5k total, so 2k less than previous, as she is no longer seeking to claim the money that she claims she would of made in 'bonuses' if she hadn't quit her job and instead had continued working there for those additional 2months.

8. She started working for a new 'webcam chat' company (which is literally just a backroom setup in a garden-shed).
I personally never had any involvement nor interaction with that company (as I had no need to), however she has gotten the guy who runs that company to file a witness statement claiming that ''the reason why he cut her hourly pay-rate by 50% shortly after she started working for him is because she was barely getting any punters phoning her, thus he was unable to afford/justify paying her a higher-rate... But that it was somehow my fault barely any customers were phoning her adult chat-line, as I had (somehow magically) managed to make every bloke in the country be wary of phoning her". *_*

9. The rest of her statement is the the usual rubbish claiming that I'm apparently a pae-dophile, a rapist, that there's apparently loads of other women who have refused to 'testify against me' because they are scared of me, that I'm unprofessional/just an amateur not a real producer... etc


I personally will ofcourse be stating to the judge during the hearing that the address of the Public Limited Company is displayed by the company on it's own website, and so is publicly viewable/available information for anyone who looks at the website, and so can in no way be classed as me ''putting anyone's safety in danger by stating the address on twitter''...
But would I also be allowed to take a screenshot of the 'contact us' page of company's website, and then add that to the evidence bundle as additional evidence, even though the evidence submission deadline has now passed?
*Just for the judge's benefit, so when I make reference to the address being listed there, she could see for herself that I was telling the truth.

I'm unsure what an 'un-real' producer actually is tbh, since anyone who producers any media content is ultimately 'a producer'.

But yes that's correct, at the time of my dealings with the defendant I was merely a consumer.
*Over the 12+ months after I ceased any dealings with the defendant though I subsequently progressed to becoming a commercial-producer | But that has no relevance to the actual particulars of this claim.

The defendant's 'angle' of claiming I was merely an unprofessional amateur though is because the tone of her claim/statement has now turned to being that "I had wanted her to perform content to levels which she's she doesn't perform up to, and so she declined those scripts/had scripts amended until she approved them & so performed them; But that (according to her witness statement) apparently that means that I started this entire claim as a way of pressuring her/punishing her...''.

waamo wrote: »

Don't get to hung up over her witness statement. That's what the hearing is about so you can both put your points over. If hers are ridiculous it helps you from the go.

Thankyou.

But yes you're correct in that her witness-statement has actually been very helpful for my case, as she herself has now confirmed a few key points (which I had raised but couldn't physically prove myself); such as that she was on a zero-hours contract, and that she left her job voluntarily of her own accord.


It just seems very bizarre though why she is now changing her story from previously saying that:
''I had complained about her to that company, resulting in her losing her job & income there'',
To now instead admitting (or rather being forced to accept the fact, based on my evidence) that I never complained to them about her, and so instead she's now claiming that:
''I planted the seed of a rumour about her, even though I didn't mention her name her colleagues & managers worked-out it was about her, her colleagues & managers treated her badly/bullied her at work due to this, so she then left that job (but not until 4 months later) & started a new job 2 months after that.... But that I should be liable to pay for her 'missed-out income' during those 2 months because I started it all''. *_*

Surely if she wishes to claim that she left her job due to being bullied, she would need to show that she took some form of action against those managers/colleagues whom she claimed were the ones bullying her?
As it just seems like a ridiculously absurd leap for her to try claiming that I am responsible for a choice that she herself made, based on actions which other people did.

The first rule of holes? :S