Young Women Using Vocal Fry When They...
Society & Culture1 min ago
Standard Disclosure
I have complied with the county court Judge's direction by supplying the defence with a list of documents relating to my Claim. The directions say inspection is to be allowed within seven further days. Does this mean that I have to send the other side all the documents on my list within seven days or simply have them all available to meet any request for inspection received from the other side? I'd rather not send the copies to them unless they ask for some/all. Thanks..
Answers
1 to 7 of 7
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Amilcar. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Inspection is just that - they can come and inspect the documents. However, in reality, they will come and inspect and then potentially ask for copies (you are obliged to disclose information relevant to your case as long as it is not priveleged). In fairness, the normal way forwards is to send copies - once they have seen them (and if they are relevant) they will undoubtedly apply for them to be in the trial bundle in any event.
What is in these documents that you do not wish to send them?
What is in these documents that you do not wish to send them?
I have complied with the Judge's directions by sending the list of researched documents prior to deadline and was planning to send copies of all of them within seven days whether asked for or not. However, the Defence is reserving right to strike out my Claim and seems to have decided for themselves not to participate in the proceedings until this is decided as they have not sent me their list by the deadline (which was 4pm today). I just wondered whether I needed to automatically send all the documents to them before next Friday or whether I had the right to wait until they made a request. The alternative would be to give them the advantage of having sight of my documents while they are depriving me of the same benefit. No, I don't have any documents to hide. Quite the reverse, I want to get on with the timetable/framework for settlement asap.
Although strictly speaking two rights don't make a wrong, I see your point. Inspection and disclosure should be simultaneous. If they have an application in to strike out, I frankly would not stoke their fire any more. See how the application for strike out/summary judgement goes. If you are successful ask the judge for an unless order namely that unless the defence supply their documents by X in accordance with the court order, their defence be struck out. Look at www.courtservice.gov.uk under legal and professional and civil procedure rules then rules and directions. Look under part 3 for the test on strike out and part 31 for disclosure. Don't just read the rules, read the practice directions too.
Thanks for the answers. Yes, "two wrongs don't make a right" was exactly the phrase I had in mind. I will go ahead with Plan A (to send them the copy documents early next week) and no-one can accuse me of being the one who has flouted the rules. I have already looked into their grounds for striking my Claim and I agree with their case.
I am suing a motor trader. My Claim was filed against Fred Bloggs trading as Bloggs Motors in February. In March, he acknowledged service and elected to dispute the Claim. He signed his defence statement in the "individual" box (rather than representing a company). In a subsequent communication, his solicitor mentioned that his client was "a sole trader" and, when the Allocation Hearing was held (multi-track) and the Defence submitted Draft Directions, the Defendant was still in the name of the trader. However, earlier this month, an Amended Defence arrived with a covering letter saying that I was suing the wrong party: the contract had been with the trader's registered company. On these grounds, the Defence incorporated the right to strike out my Claim in the Amended Defence. His solicitor said I must drop my Claim against his client and start again with a new Claim against the company. Rather than start from scratch, I applied to substitute the company as the liable entity under CPR Rule 19. I understand that there will have to be a hearing on this unless the Defendant waives this. It is against this background that the disclosure formalities have been playing out.... Thanks again for your interest.
I am suing a motor trader. My Claim was filed against Fred Bloggs trading as Bloggs Motors in February. In March, he acknowledged service and elected to dispute the Claim. He signed his defence statement in the "individual" box (rather than representing a company). In a subsequent communication, his solicitor mentioned that his client was "a sole trader" and, when the Allocation Hearing was held (multi-track) and the Defence submitted Draft Directions, the Defendant was still in the name of the trader. However, earlier this month, an Amended Defence arrived with a covering letter saying that I was suing the wrong party: the contract had been with the trader's registered company. On these grounds, the Defence incorporated the right to strike out my Claim in the Amended Defence. His solicitor said I must drop my Claim against his client and start again with a new Claim against the company. Rather than start from scratch, I applied to substitute the company as the liable entity under CPR Rule 19. I understand that there will have to be a hearing on this unless the Defendant waives this. It is against this background that the disclosure formalities have been playing out.... Thanks again for your interest.
Update: just received notice of hearing re. my "leave to amend defendant" scheduled for Oct 9th, allowing 5 minutes. Have not heard anything more from defendant or court about striking out the Claim. This was contained in para 1 of the Amended Defence. So, maybe, it won't be addressed at this stage....?
1 to 7 of 7
