Be prepared to address each and every part of the claim, and to deal with everything at the hearing.
@convoy2 Seems things are going your way. Does the order specify which CPR she is not following? I have some video footage of MY garden if that helps.LOL.!
Remember in court.... if you don't contest a fact, the Judge can take it that you accept the fact. So contest the video and question what it shows. Question what 'expert' has given an 'opinion'... Remember an opinion is neither fact nor 'evidence'.
Not sure about the amount of claim. AFAIK the initial MCOL claim is what the court will look at/award if the case is won. Adding other amounts later might get rejected out of hand. @Activist might know the answer to that one.
CPR 27 is small claims.
Trying to look if I can raise that the claimant has raised a incorrect claim in her particulars relating to the sum , which if you recall is now proven by the email from her new contractor confirming the payment of a much lessor amount. Which interest is still accruing on this original higher figure.
As she has not followed protocol so in our last hearing the J did not have a signed written document confirming this but they would have had the MCOL form which confirms the amount which is sought, then signed 6. Statement of truth.
Proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against a person who makes or causes to be made a false statement in a document, prepared in anticipation of or during proceedings and verified by a statement of truth, without an honest belief in its truth.
(Part 22 makes provision for statements of truth.)
(Part 81 contains provisions in relation to proceedings for contempt of court.
But is it excluded?
Extent to which other Parts apply
(1) The following Parts of these Rules do not apply to small claims –
(a) Part 25 (interim remedies) except as it relates to interim injunctions(GL);
(b) Part 31 (disclosure and inspection);
(c) Part 32 (evidence) except rule 32.1 (power of court to control evidence
Power of court to control evidence
(1) The court may control the evidence by giving directions as to –
(a) the issues on which it requires evidence;
(b) the nature of the evidence which it requires to decide those issues; and
(c) the way in which the evidence is to be placed before the court.
(2) The court may use its power under this rule to exclude evidence that would otherwise be admissible.
(3) The court may limit cross-examination
@convoy2 Only you know the facts of the amount of money claimed and what has been shown in emails etc. As I said before, the Judge will decide ( if in her favour) what the actual £££ will be etc. However, if you think she has inflated her £££ claim and can prove it, that will be in your favour as it casts doubt upon her integrity and truthfulness. In a 50/50 case, the Judge has to decide which party seems to be the more believable/honest/lying. As for the CPR bits, I say forget it. In my case, the defendant lied everywhere, including his modified witness statement ( having had 2 weeks to read mine). I can't say if my Judge saw through all the lies, and I can't ask him!. My thoughts on contempt of court is that it is reserved for only the most serious cases of contempt, and probably never actioned in an LIP case..... But I might be wrong on that.
keep your eye on the ball. Deal with the facts of the case, including the proper amount of the claim.
Let the judge make the findings, and let him decide what the consequences of those findings should be.
Do not allow yourself to be sidetracked - keep a clear focus on the issues in the case.
@ Convoy... some return help pls ( off-topic). Any idea of the ball park cost of having a tarmac drive installed? Remove 55 SqM (dig out and remove), install 25M of edging, 150- 200mm Type1 laid over Terram 1000 50mm binder, 25mm surface tarmac. THx
Yes beginning of next month
Received two WS from the Claimant last week, we have a date this week to exchange on so why she sent them early is beyond me, anyway only from her mum and a family friend which believe it or not are a exact copy word for word with just assumptions of what the new contractor were showing them!
There is no reason not to provide witness statements early. There is no requirement to wait to the set date (and isn't the date given the date by which this is to be done?)
Identical statements usually provide scope for challenge.
@activist Yes! collusion is a sure-fire way to get your WS challenged. Two people sitting down together and coming up with similar arguments/statements is a recipe for their own downfall! Apart from that, opinion counts for nothing IME.
Hearing tomorrow, how much weight can I push with regard that both the claimant and the new contractor (who has driven this to obviously get work) have not provided witness statement to back there facts/allegations up?
Things are proved with evidence.
Without evidence, nothing is proved.
And good luck.