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

SaucySecrets wrote: »

Is #2 a claim for libel, or loss of earnings? I'd have read it as the latter, it doesn't look like they are seeking any moneys for damaged reputation or anything, just that your actions forced them to incur losses (according to them).

(I am in no way an expert here, though)

They have claimed that statements made by me about them to other people (even though their name was never mentioned in any public statement) caused serious damage to their professional reputation,
and that apparently that resulted them in ceasing working with a certain brand.

So ultimately the claim would have to be for Libel, and that Libel would then have to be the cause of the loss of earnings, if I've interpretted the law correctly?

waamo wrote: »

As above she is claiming for loss of earnings not libel.

In her counter-claim she has even used the word libel/libelous though.

And has claimed that this alledged loss of earnings was because her reputation was damaged due to things said by me about her to other people, which resulted in her having to cease doing certain work (do directly due to the alledged Libellous statements made by me).


I know that I know virtually nothing about the law, but how can she claim for 'loss of earnings - caused due to reputational damage due to libel | but that not be a claim for libel?' :S

Hello I will try to keep the background & summary of the case as short as possible-

1. I contacted the defendant approx 15-months ago and enquired about commissioning her to perform & produce a number of 'custom-scripted' for me.
   The defendant quoted me a total price for producing a certain number of videos, got paid that total sum of money (just over £3,000), but then only produced 1/2 that number of videos.
   She then blocked me and stated she no longer wished to have any future dealings with me, but refused to refund the money paid for those non-produced videos.
   
   Part of our agreement, upon which the videos were ordered & paid for, was that I would have the right to re-sell the videos online.
   However as the defendant subsequently then threatened to 'sue me' if I did sell the videos online, she breached the contract & put me under duress, thus rendering the produced videos of no value.
   
   Therefore my claim was for the sum of money which I paid for the produced videos, due to her breaching the contract by putting me under duress, plus for the money which I paid her for the non-produced videos.
   
   I have written evidence showing (and proving) each & every element of those claims.

The defendant however has filed a counterclaim saying-

1. Because I had mentioned a few times that ''depending on how the initial order went I would be looking to/interested in placing more orders over the future months & years for approx 45-50 more videos'' | That because I didn't proceed to ever place those orders I 'breached contract', and thus should be liable to pay her the full sum of money that she would've earned if I had placed all those orders.
2. That because I told mutual-associates of ours about what she had done, and because that information then apparently got circulated amongst people, and was apparently was heard about by 1 of the brands which she regularly worked for as a self-employed contractor, that because she then was ''driven out'' of working for that brand, and because there was apparently an 8-week period until she started regular work for another brand (again merely as a self-employed contractor), that I should be liable for the money which she claims she would've earned from Brand A during that 8-week period if she hadn't ceased working there/had been offered work by them during that 8-week period.
   
   She hasn't provided any evidence showing any letters from Brand A as to any reason why she wasn't offered work during that 8-week period, has simply provided copies of private messages which I exchanged with mutual-associates of ours in which I told them what she did.And the only mentions of any future orders by me were simply, as I stated, messages where I said that I would be 'looking to/interested in' placing future orders, depending on how this 1st order went.
   
   *The rest of her evidence is simply just screenshots of various random people saying unpleasant things to me on Twitter, none of which/or whom are of any relevance whatsoever to this matter, and all of which occured many months after this matter even.
   
   

I am now trying to formulate, and then write in a clear & concise manner my reasons why I believe I have a good chance of successfully defending the claim, and will then read that statement out to the judge at the hearing.

I have posted below my 1st attempt at drafting this verbal-statement, but so if any of you would please be kind enough to review it for me, and let me know if it looks ok from a legal perspective, that would be greatly appreciated?

#

''I believe I have a good chance of successfully defending the claim made against me by the defendant due to the fact that the defendant's claim is without merit.

The basis of the defendant's counter-claim is in 3 parts-
Firstly, despite the evidence clearly showing that I never placed orders for dozens of video clips,
merely expressed an interest during conversations that I would be looking to/interested in placing orders in future for 45-50 more videos over the future months & years, depending on how this 1st order went, as I had ideas in my mind for storylines for the scripts of dozens more videos...
The defendant is claiming that if I had placed though hypothetical orders in future, that she would've then made £xxx amount of money, and so her claim is for that sum of money.

I feel I have a good chance of successfully defending this part of her claim because-
A. Merely expressing an interest in placing orders for a product in future, dependent on how the 1st order goes, in no way whatsoever constitues as a legally-binding contract which compels me to place those hypothetical future orders.
B. Even if this had been a contract, the terms of it would of been deem unfair in accordance with the Consumer Rights Act (2018) due to that it would of contained a clause which allowed the defendant to withdraw from it at any time with no financial penalty (as is shown in the evidence), but would not of afforded me that same right.
C. As the evidence shows, the defendant, after having produced just 3 videos for me, stated to me in writing that if I wasn't satisfied with the quality of the work that she would refund me the rest of my money.
This clearly shows what the 'cancellation policy' was, as set by the defendant herself, that I could cancel my order for any 'paid but not yet produced' videos, and recieve a refund of my money.
Moreover shows that there was absolutely no notion whatsoever that I would be liable to proceed with placing orders & paying for dozens more videos in future merely because I had expressed an interest in them.
D. As the evidence shows, the defendant herself terminated any dealings/or communication with my by ignoring my emails and then blocking me on Twitter (our primary method of communication), thus making it clear she wished to terminate any future dealings with me.
Therefore even if I had wished to place any future orders from the defendant over the future months/years, the defendant herself terminated that possibility, but yet is now trying to claim money for it.


Secondly, the defendant claims as part of her counter-claim that because various indviduals who were associates of mine and/or directly involved in this matter were told that the true facts about how the defendant had only completed 1/2 of the order which she had been paid, but then blocked me and kept the rest of my money (around £1,450 | money which she had been paid specifically designated to be used to pay other individual's wages),
that because the news about what she had done apparently got circulated amongst various people, that apparently this caused damage to her reputation, and apparently that was the reason why she ceased working as a self-employed contractor for a certain brand on a certain date.

The defendant has subsequently claimed that because she apparently did not do any work, as a self-employed contractor, for that specific brand for a period of 8-weeks, that I should be liable to pay her the sum of money which she claims she would've earned if that specific brand had chosen to offer her work during that 8-week period.

I feel I have a good chance of successfully defending this part of her claim because-
A. This is a claim based on alledged Libel. However the Civil Procedure Rules clearly state that claims for Libel must be be started in the High Court, as the County Court does not have the jurisdiction to hear or consider claims of Libel.
The defendant however started this claim in the County Court.
B. The defendant has provided no evidence showing that I personally was directly responsible for any alledged loss of earnings experienced by her, instead is relying on pure speculation as to any potential reason why a specific brand may of opted to not offer her work, as a self-employed contractor, during a certain period of time.
Moreover as the brand in question was simply hiring her as a self-employed contractor they would of been perfectly within their rights to simply choose to not offer her/anyone work during certain periods of time for any number of possible reasons/or without even providing a reason.


And the third part of the defendant's counter-claim is for sums of money which she claims she 'wishes she had charged me for', but which were never mentioned nor included in the price quotes which she gave to me when quoted me the prices for the products which I had requested to order from her.

She states that she should of charged me a higher price than she did, and should of also charged me for various other production costs which she incurred.
However this would ofcourse be totally unenforceable, as she is quite simply creating additional hidden charges, which were never included in the original prices which she quoted/which I agreed to, and then attempting to now in retrospect claim I am liable to pay her those charges''.



How does that sound as a verbal-statement though please?

And have I missed out any points of law/or mis-worded anything in that statement?



Thankyou so much inadvance

waamo wrote: »

It's not a libel claim because she has claimed for a specified loss. She has explicitly stated it's for loss of earnings so that's what it is. If it was a libel claim you would both need legal representation which you've said you can't afford so it's probably best not to go down that path anyway.

Hello and thankyou for confirming that.

I thought that because she is claiming that this apparent loss of earnings was directly linked to/and the result of apparent libel from me, that the claim would then be a libel claim.
*As I thought loss of earnings claims would only work in practise if you were dismissed from a job unfairly/or suffered an accident which meant you couldn't work - However neither of those apply here, as she is claiming that she left the job due to the libellous claims which I made.

Ultimately you know more than me about law though, and so if you say that even though she claims her alledged loss of earnings is due to libel statements made by me, that that wouldn't make it a libel claim, I will take your word on the matter.