PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Pre-emptive N180 DQs, coincidence or malice?
andy_foster
post Sun, 7 Aug 2022 - 22:20
Post #1


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 24,213
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



I am currently involved in defending a civil claim (potentially several unrelated claims, but that's a story for another day).
Nearly 2 months ago I filed the defence.
2 days later (from the records on MCOL) the case was assigned to the home court - although I received no notification of this.
About 2 weeks later, the claimant's solicitors pre-emptively filed (and sent me a copy of) the DQ that were expected to be sent to the parties in due course.
A few days ago, I received a snotty letter (General Form of Judgment or Order) from the court telling me that if I did not file the DQ within 7 days the defence would be struck out.
If I had received one, I would have already done so!

Obtaining an N180 form (current version, not the 2014 version sent by the claimant) is trivial, as are the questions, but it makes me wonder if there's a bustle in your hedgerow - is it more likely that the court sent the DQ form to me and it was subsequently lost in the post, or did some case admin tubby see that there was a completed DQ from the claimant, assume that the DQs had been sent out and then get snotty because mine hadn't been returned?

As far as I am aware, I do not have an issue with post going missing, but most of the post I receive is junk mail, so I wouldn't necessarily notice.


--------------------
Andy

Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 8)
Advertisement
post Sun, 7 Aug 2022 - 22:20
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sun, 7 Aug 2022 - 22:30
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



The knee-jerk own-motion unless order is an interesting approach.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Sun, 7 Aug 2022 - 23:05
Post #3


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 24,213
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



Slightly confused as knee-jerk (reactive) and own-motion (proactive) appear to be contradictory.


--------------------
Andy

Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sun, 7 Aug 2022 - 23:28
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (andy_foster @ Mon, 8 Aug 2022 - 00:05) *
Slightly confused as knee-jerk (reactive) and own-motion (proactive) appear to be contradictory.

Knee-jerk as in prompted by the claimant’s form, own motion as in neither party applied for it.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TMC Towcester
post Mon, 8 Aug 2022 - 05:39
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,074
Joined: 17 Nov 2015
Member No.: 80,686



QUOTE (andy_foster @ Mon, 8 Aug 2022 - 00:05) *
Slightly confused as knee-jerk (reactive) and own-motion (proactive) appear to be contradictory.


Don't be alarmed now............
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 8 Aug 2022 - 09:56
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (andy_foster @ Sun, 7 Aug 2022 - 23:20) *
A few days ago, I received a snotty letter (General Form of Judgment or Order) from the court telling me that if I did not file the DQ within 7 days the defence would be struck out.

I suspect they received the DQ from the claimant and just assumed it had been sent out and you hadn't bothered replying. There is a tendency in the courts to follow a tick-box exercise approach and just go by whatever the latest document in the file is.

I have a case I'm trying to sort out at the moment where the defendant filed an application to strike-out and a defence, the court issued a CCJ. When this was pointed out they set aside the CCJ, but didn't list the strike out for a hearing (we asked and paid for a hearing in the hope of reducing the scope for errors). So now we're arguing with the admin staff that if you file an application and pay the appropriate fee, they have no discretion not to list the matter before a judge.

I was actually going to ask SP, if the administrative shenanigans lead to wasted costs, is there any reason in principle not to pursue a wasted costs order against HMCTS / the MOJ?


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Mon, 8 Aug 2022 - 10:32
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 8 Aug 2022 - 10:56) *
I was actually going to ask SP, if the administrative shenanigans lead to wasted costs, is there any reason in principle not to pursue a wasted costs order against HMCTS / the MOJ?

Yes. Wasted costs orders (r 46.8) can only be made against a legal representative. In any case, as Coulson LJ said in Anwer v Central Bridging Loans Ltd “Judges and court officials cannot be liable in law to litigants, in either damages or costs.”


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 8 Aug 2022 - 11:37
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Going into purely speculative territory, administrative actions of the court are, well, administrative. In an extreme case, would it be an option to either join HMCTS as a party or bring a JR?


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Mon, 8 Aug 2022 - 15:06
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



I don’t think you’d get permission to join them as a party, due to no cause of action (in damages or costs, per Anwer). As to JR, it depends on whether the act was truly administrative or in fact a judicial act, i.e. a case management decision.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 20:41
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here