Tweet
I am currently involved in a dispute with a small business who allege that I owe them money, despite me having a strong amount of evidence to suggest that their claim is without foundation. They've previously been through a solicitor to request payment, which I declined and then insisted that they took the matter to court if they wanted settlement
They have now lodged a claim in the county court without the assistance of said solicitors. The sum is less than £10k and likely to go down the small claims track.
Their PoC is a fairly concise history of events thus far, but fails to spell out what exactly their case is (inference at best) and doesn't even state what legal framework they are relying on (e.g. breach of contract etc), it is simply a timeline of events to date. There isn't actually a properly worded allegation in there at all, only a very slight inference about my alleged dishonesty.
I have lodged an AoS and now have 21 days to defend the claim, which I intend to do fully.
I am now unsure of how I should respond to the claim? As I understand it, my options include:
1) Request a strike out on the basis that PoC do not comply with CPR, which in all likelihood will just lead to the court asking the claimant to amend the PoC and pay a fee of approx £35 (which they cannot claim back from me?) and the claim still proceeding a few weeks later than scheduled.
2) Lodge a defence, mention explicitly in the defence that the PoC do not appear to comply with CPR and state that until the PoC are lodged correctly, the defendant is unable to respond to either admit or deny the claim as the allegations are absent and very unclear.
3) Lodge a defence, ignore the PoC issue for now, responding only in very basic terms solely in response to their 'non-allegation' accusations such as "The Defendant admits she was indeed wearing brown shoes on the day in question". Therefore ignoring the inference of alleged dishonesty, as this has not been spelled out properly.
4) As for '3)' except referring explicitly to the slight inference of dishonesty and expressing a full denial in writing.
In all honesty, I'm fully aware of their allegations and feel I am already in a strong position, therefore a new set of PoC would not really benefit me except that this is likely to lead to further expense for the claimant and delay any court date. However, if not mentioning the abysmal PoC is likely to leave the claimant in front of a judge with a claim that he cannot prove (as it contains no allegations) then it is surely worth me keeping quiet?
I would appreciate your thoughts.
They have now lodged a claim in the county court without the assistance of said solicitors. The sum is less than £10k and likely to go down the small claims track.
Their PoC is a fairly concise history of events thus far, but fails to spell out what exactly their case is (inference at best) and doesn't even state what legal framework they are relying on (e.g. breach of contract etc), it is simply a timeline of events to date. There isn't actually a properly worded allegation in there at all, only a very slight inference about my alleged dishonesty.
I have lodged an AoS and now have 21 days to defend the claim, which I intend to do fully.
I am now unsure of how I should respond to the claim? As I understand it, my options include:
1) Request a strike out on the basis that PoC do not comply with CPR, which in all likelihood will just lead to the court asking the claimant to amend the PoC and pay a fee of approx £35 (which they cannot claim back from me?) and the claim still proceeding a few weeks later than scheduled.
2) Lodge a defence, mention explicitly in the defence that the PoC do not appear to comply with CPR and state that until the PoC are lodged correctly, the defendant is unable to respond to either admit or deny the claim as the allegations are absent and very unclear.
3) Lodge a defence, ignore the PoC issue for now, responding only in very basic terms solely in response to their 'non-allegation' accusations such as "The Defendant admits she was indeed wearing brown shoes on the day in question". Therefore ignoring the inference of alleged dishonesty, as this has not been spelled out properly.
4) As for '3)' except referring explicitly to the slight inference of dishonesty and expressing a full denial in writing.
In all honesty, I'm fully aware of their allegations and feel I am already in a strong position, therefore a new set of PoC would not really benefit me except that this is likely to lead to further expense for the claimant and delay any court date. However, if not mentioning the abysmal PoC is likely to leave the claimant in front of a judge with a claim that he cannot prove (as it contains no allegations) then it is surely worth me keeping quiet?
I would appreciate your thoughts.
Comment