Signature requirement for MCOL form

[ostell]

There is a case on the PiPipoo forums at the moment where a keeper has received a claim via Northampton from a PPC directly without a solicitor acting. The claim form is signed "PPC Ltd". I understood that if the claim was not raised by a solicitor then the requirement was that the claim had to be signed by an officer of the company. Is my memory playing tricks on me? There is some urgency on this.

If this is the case then can anyone point me to the regulations.

THis matter is a a claim for in excess of £3.5K for 36 ignored, and thrown away, the NTKs. To add to the confusion the keeper has only now asked for advice despite receiving the claim form early December, and issue date of the 5th. The claim does not appear to have been acknowledged. There could have been some hope in that the driver on many occasions lives abroad but too late now.

This was a terminal illness case over a couple of years and the keeper actually had a parking permit for the hospital. It has been suggested that PALS is contacted.

[warwick65]

Re: Signature requirement for MCOL form

Hi
I remember @charitynjw provided a link to this on my thread about a Lowell claim.

[charitynjw]

Re: Signature requirement for MCOL form

Hi
I remember @charitynjw provided a link to this on my thread about a Lowell claim. It was mentioned in court at my hearing but was not pressed however we had better arguments that killed their claim dead

Err.............

There is a case on the PiPipoo forums at the moment where a keeper has received a claim via Northampton from a PPC directly without a solicitor acting. The claim form is signed "PPC Ltd". I understood that if the claim was not raised by a solicitor then the requirement was that the claim had to be signed by an officer of the company. Is my memory playing tricks on me? There is some urgency on this.

If this is the case then can anyone point me to the regulations.

THis matter is a a claim for in excess of £3.5K for 36 ignored, and thrown away, the NTKs. To add to the confusion the keeper has only now asked for advice despite receiving the claim form early December, and issue date of the 5th. The claim does not appear to have been acknowledged. There could have been some hope in that the driver on many occasions lives abroad but too late now.

This was a terminal illness case over a couple of years and the keeper actually had a parking permit for the hospital. It has been suggested that PALS is contacted.

If the court claim is not signed by a relevant person (eg the Claimant, their legal rep, an authorised company official etc) the claim cannot be relied on as evidence.
Although not necessarily fatal to the claim per se, it can be struck out either via the court's discretion or via application of the Defendant.
CPR 22(2)(1) & 22(2)(2) https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pr...l/rules/part22

[des8]

Re: Signature requirement for MCOL form

CPR 22 1 (6) states who should sign the statement of truth.
Practice Direction 22 3.4 clarifies that: 3.4 Where a document is to be verified on behalf of a company or other corporation, subject to paragraph 3.7 below, the statement of truth must be signed by a person holding a senior position⁴in the company or corporation. That person must state the office or position held.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pr...l/rules/part22
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pr...rt22/pd_part22
.

[ostell]

Re: Signature requirement for MCOL form

Thanks guys, that may just give enough time to try and sort out a defence if the claim, in it's present form, can be rejected.

[mystery1]

Re: Signature requirement for MCOL form

CPR 22


Documents to be verified by a statement of truth
22.1
(1) The following documents must be verified by a statement of truth –
(a) a statement of case






Practice direction 22


Who may sign the statement of truth
3.1 In a statement of case, a response or an application notice, the statement of truth must be signed by

(1) the party or his litigation friend2, or

3.4 Where a document is to be verified on behalf of a company or other corporation, subject to paragraph 3.7 below, the statement of truth must be signed by a person holding a senior position4 in the company or corporation. That person must state the office or position held.

3.5 Each of the following persons is a person holding a senior position:

(1) in respect of a registered company or corporation, a director, the treasurer, secretary, chief executive, manager or other officer of the company or corporation, and

(2) in respect of a corporation which is not a registered company, in addition to those persons set out in (1), the mayor, chairman, president or town clerk or other similar officer of the corporation.




Companies

Paragraphs 3.4 and 3.5 apply. The word manager will be construed in the context of the phrase ‘a person holding a senior position’ which it is used to define. The court will consider the size of the company and the size and nature of the claim. It would expect the manager signing the statement of truth to have personal knowledge of the content of the document or to be responsible for managing those who have that knowledge of the content. A small company may not have a manager, apart from the directors, who holds a senior position. A large company will have many such managers. In a larger company with specialist claims, insurance or legal departments the statement may be signed by the manager of such a department if he or she is responsible for handling the claim or managing the staff handling it.







3.7 Where a party is legally represented, the legal representative may sign the statement of truth on his behalf. The statement signed by the legal representative will refer to the client’s belief, not his own. In signing he must state the capacity in which he signs and the name of his firm where appropriate.

Practice direction 7E


Signature
10 Any provision of the CPR which requires a document to be signed by any person is satisfied by that person entering their name on an online form.



Consequences of failure to verify
4.1 If a statement of case is not verified by a statement of truth, the statement of case will remain effective unless it is struck out5, but a party may not rely on the contents of a statement of case as evidence until it has been verified by a statement of truth.

4.2 Any party may apply to the court for an order that unless within such period as the court may specify the statement of case is verified by the service of a statement of truth, the statement of case will be struck out.

4.3 The usual order for the costs of an application referred to in paragraph 4.2 will be that the costs be paid by the party who had failed to verify in any event and forthwith.




Failure to verify a statement of case
22.2

(1) If a party fails to verify his statement of case by a statement of truth –

(a) the statement of case shall remain effective unless struck out; but

(b) the party may not rely on the statement of case as evidence of any of the matters set out in it.

(2) The court may strike out(GL) a statement of case which is not verified by a statement of truth.

(3) Any party may apply for an order under paragraph (2).



Power of the court to require a document to be verified
22.4

(1) The court may order a person who has failed to verify a document in accordance with rule 22.1 to verify the document.

(2) Any party may apply for an order under paragraph (1).










Only an idiot would proceed to ask for a strike out before trying to get the opponent to rectify "informally". However if you invite them to rectify the issue (and the failures to plead properly PD 16 7.5) and they stick 2 fingers up then for £3.6k i'd be making an application.

M1