Small Claims in the County Court
Jon
reasons I will quote selected portions. Lawyers know all this, of
course, but the issue here is whether the public appreciate that at a
small claims hearing they might occasionally be up against a
professional advocate. Moral: always check whether your opponent will be
using lawyers on the day, and if you find that solicitors are
corresponding with you, assume that solicitors or counsel will be
against you in court.
Note also that this Times reporter (like many contributors to uk.legal)
can barely conceal his triumph at having won against a professional
advocate. So the other moral is that professional legal advisors
sometimes foolishly advise their clients to fight cases that ought to be
settled.
[quote]
Why small is not so beautiful
by Miti Ampoma
Last year 1.5 million people lodged claims in the county court most in
the small claims court. How many obtained a satisfactory result?
My ordeal began last summer when I hired the services of a man who
advertised himself as a “house refurbishment, shop fitter, painter and
decorator”. He was to carry out substantial refurbishment on my
Victorian terrace including plumbing in a new bathroom, plastering,
painting and decorating nine rooms. The total works would take six weeks
with the top floor completed in the first three. I paid him £4,750
upfront.
Four weeks later my house was a wreck and the top floor had not been
completed. It transpired that the decorator had a day job and my home
was his bit of moonlighting. The team he had hired deserted after a row
between themselves over pay. The plumbing flooded on use. My light
switches ceased to function and were certified dangerous, while paints
were watered down, leaving streaks on the walls. After repeated requests
for progress, I sacked him and spent a further £2,000 putting right the
damage.
In January he issued court proceedings against me for breach of
contract.
My Citizens Advice Bureau said it wasn’t necessary to have legal
representation. A small claims court hearing would be an informal
affair, it said, where the judge would preside over the two lay people
involved in the dispute.Imagine my shock then when I arrived at
Willesden County Court in northwest London to find the claimant
accompanied by a legal team of two solicitors and a barrister. I was on
my own.
In court legal jargon rained on me like hailstones as his barrister
talked about my having “waived rights”, “contemporaneous matters”
and the need to “narrow down the issues in the interest of her
client”. I was subjected to 50 minutes of ferocious cross-examination,
while he escaped anything similar because I had no legal representation.
The case lasted for four hours. I felt as though I was on trial. It was
unbalanced. It seemed unfair. It left me shaken. Against the odds, I
won.
The intention and spirit of the small claims court was to provide an
informal way for lay citizens to settle disputes, with a judge
facilitating the process. A county court guidance leaflet designed to
assist people through the system confirms this. It says that the small
claims track provides a “simple and informal way of resolving
disputes; the hearing will be informal; the strict rules of evidence
will not apply”. It adds: “You should be able to do this without a
solicitor.” There is no hint of the potentially lethal advocacy skills
of your opponent’s barrister which you might face.
Given my experience, is it time people were made aware that legal
representation is a must? And if so, does it not undermine the spirit of
the small claims procedure? Professor Harriet Kimbell, at the College of
Law in Guildford, was for three years the public interest representative
of the rules committee .... She says: “It is not possible to prevent a
party instructing lawyers if he wishes to do so and pay for them
personally. It is now almost a matter of human rights that he should be
able to do so. However, it was never envisaged that a party would
instruct a whole gamut of lawyers including counsel to appear in a small
claims case against a litigant in person. This would be very frightening
to the person on the other side, who would feel intimidated and
outgunned.
[unquote]
--
Jon
Useful legal links at http://www.jongru.freeserve.co.uk
JohnJo
-----------------------------------------------
"Jon" <Jo...@j0ngru.freeserve.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:p45YRrAX...@nospam.j0ngru.freeserve.co.uk.invalid...
> An interesting article from the Times of 13th August 2002. For copyright
> reasons I will quote selected portions. Lawyers know all this, of
> course, but the issue here is whether the public appreciate that at a
> small claims hearing they might occasionally be up against a
> professional advocate. Moral: always check whether your opponent will be
> using lawyers on the day, and if you find that solicitors are
> corresponding with you, assume that solicitors or counsel will be
> against you in court.
>
>
> by Miti Ampoma
> Last year 1.5 million people lodged claims in the county court most in
> the small claims court. How many obtained a satisfactory result?
>
> My ordeal began last summer when I hired the services of a man who
> advertised himself as a "house refurbishment, shop fitter, painter and
> decorator". He was to carry out substantial refurbishment on my
> Victorian terrace including plumbing in a new bathroom, plastering,
> painting and decorating nine rooms. The total works would take six weeks
> with the top floor completed in the first three. I paid him £4,750
> upfront.
After repeated requests
> for progress, I sacked him and spent a further £2,000 putting right the
> damage.
>
> In January he issued court proceedings against me for breach of
> contract.
> My Citizens Advice Bureau said it wasn't necessary to have legal
> representation. A small claims court hearing would be an informal
> affair, it said, where the judge would preside over the two lay people
> involved in the dispute.Imagine my shock then when I arrived at
> Willesden County Court in northwest London to find the claimant
> accompanied by a legal team of two solicitors and a barrister. I was on
> my own.
>
> In court legal jargon rained on me like hailstones as his barrister
> talked about my having "waived rights", "contemporaneous matters"
> and the need to "narrow down the issues in the interest of her
> client". I was subjected to 50 minutes of ferocious cross-examination,
> while he escaped anything similar because I had no legal representation.
> The case lasted for four hours. I felt as though I was on trial. It was
> unbalanced. It seemed unfair. It left me shaken.
AGAINST THE ODDS, I WON (my emphasis (JJ)).
>
> The intention and spirit of the small claims court was to provide an
> informal way for lay citizens to settle disputes, with a judge
> facilitating the process.
Given my experience, is it time people were made aware that legal
> representation is a must?
>
Surely the moral of this long whinge (and I've snipped lots) is that
despite the other party having a barrister and solicitor, and despite
"ferocious" cross-examination and a 4 hour hearing, she won her case. So
despite her suggested handicapped, justice prevailed.
MikeinCamden
intended to put on a good show for the client. That may well have worked in the
claimant's favour.
Norbert
<john...@netscapenospam.net> wrote:
>Surely the moral of this long whinge (and I've snipped lots) is that
>despite the other party having a barrister and solicitor,
A barrister and two solicitors, says the article.
>and despite
>"ferocious" cross-examination and a 4 hour hearing, she won her case. So
>despite her suggested handicapped, justice prevailed.
Maybe not "in spite", maybe because. In my experience District Judges
hearing small claims cases try to even out the odds in a situation
like that, and for instance ask the represented party the questions
they should be asked in cross examination by the unrepresented party.
I've had two small claims cases against Consignia so far, and a third
pending, for non-payment of statutory compensation after losing
Recorded Delivery items (once they had sent a £3 book of stamps
instead), and got judgment in both, although Consignia sent a
barrister (to defend a £27 claim).
In the last case the judge asked the barrister: "Don't you think it's
an insult to send a £3 book of stamps?" She replied: "Sir, I couldn't
possibly comment." Judge: "I know, but I can *ask* you!" That scene
alone would have been worth the filing fee.
--
Norbert (c) 2002: Paperwork Limited
Tel +44 7050 697894 - Fax +44 7050 697895
Jon
"n...@spam.please" <n...@spam.please> writes
>On Fri, 16 Aug 2002 21:38:17 +0000 (UTC), Jon
><Jo...@j0ngru.freeserve.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>>An interesting article from the Times of 13th August 2002.
>
Up to a point, but you're not being quite fair. The journalist won
his/her case, and the gripe was that a procedure designed for litigants
in person is an uneven playing field if one party is free to instruct
lawyers.
Lord Woolf's overriding objective is to deal with cases justly and that
is supposed to include "so far as is practicable, ensuring that the
parties are on an even footing". Those of us who believe that the Woolf
Reforms are a crock of shit, have always said that the court cannot
ensure that the parties are on an even footing and therefore it is wrong
to raise false expectations in the public's mind. And it would be
wrong to ban the parties from using lawyers, too. What the court ought
to do, in its information leaflets, is to point out that either side can
use lawyers, that your chances of success may be better if you use a
lawyer and that it might be best to research your arguments in advance
of the trial. And there ought to be free online databases of case law,
preferably along the lines of the Current Legal Information/Current Law
database.
And perhaps there ought to be requirements that if lawyers are involved
in a small claims track case, they should be required to prepare and
serve skeleton arguments several weeks before the hearing so that the
litigant in person has a chance to prepare his own arguments.
--
Jon
John O
"Jon" <Jo...@j0ngru.freeserve.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
Skippery slope, I fear. Whilst I accept your points.....I would expect that
if this became standard (i.e., people being told they CAN use lawyers), then
far from it being the exception, within a couple of eyars every Middle Class
person who is upset by the antics of a small tradesperson will be hauling
them in front of the SCC, with solicitor in tow.
Length of cases (and cost) will go through the roof - and possibly the
procedure will fall into disrepute.
>
> --
> Jon
Dr. Dave
Norbert <usene...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:7uurlugdifu2572kr...@4ax.com...
Some of these companies are off their trolleys in what they defend.
I sued Cornhill for breach of contract. Their barrister turned up in Court
and was asked by the DDJ "I have the contract in my hand. Can you show me
which clause entitles you to vary the terms of the policy in this manner?".
"I can't sir" was the reply, and that was the end of that.
Dr. Dave
> talked about my having "waived rights", "contemporaneous matters"
> and the need to "narrow down the issues in the interest of her
> client". I was subjected to 50 minutes of ferocious cross-examination,
> while he escaped anything similar because I had no legal representation.
> The case lasted for four hours. I felt as though I was on trial. It was
> unbalanced. It seemed unfair. It left me shaken. Against the odds, I
> won.
What on earth did you think would happen?
Did you think that legal principles would have no part whatsoever to play in
it?
Did you really think they wouldn't be entitled to cross-examine you?
Did you think that you would walz in and say "My decorator owes me ŁXXX" and
the Judge would say "OK then"?
In my experience, the DDJ always protects the interests of the LIP.
The TERMinator
"John O" <aud...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d5e42a1$0$12854$afc3...@news.easynet.co.uk...
If a Legally Qualified Person turns up with all kinds of case precedents;
then any decent DJ will allow the LIP to ask for an adjournment to research
the issues raised. Indeed there is some case law to suggest that a party
should not be defeated as a result of a precedent, until that person has had
a chance to distinguish it.
Norbert
<da...@astles.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Some of these companies are off their trolleys in what they defend.
>
>I sued Cornhill for breach of contract. Their barrister turned up in Court
>and was asked by the DDJ "I have the contract in my hand. Can you show me
>which clause entitles you to vary the terms of the policy in this manner?".
>"I can't sir" was the reply, and that was the end of that.
Yes, I've heard that Cornhill are in that category.
Another corporate intimidation strategy: to make noises to get the
case off the small claims track, and "estimate" extremely high costs
in the Allocation Questionnaire. I have a consumer claim for £200 now,
where the company's solicitors have taken instructions, acknowledged
receipt, filed a six page Defence, and an Allocation Questionnaire,
and estimate their fees for that at £2,750! They also want the case on
the multi-track, because it "could affect a large number of similar
contracts". I look forward to the Case Management Conference.
Another strategy I came across from Consignia was to demand disclosure
of the original Certificate of Posting by sending it in to them, quite
an irony in a case over a lost letter. They threatened it might have
consequences as to costs if I didn't do as told. So I just replied I
wasn't impressed, referred them to the court's disclosure orders
(exchanging copies, and bringing the originals to the hearing) and
suggested they ask the judge for amended orders.1
Stuart
<da...@astles.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In court legal jargon rained on me like hailstones as his barrister
>> talked about my having "waived rights", "contemporaneous matters"
>> and the need to "narrow down the issues in the interest of her
>> client". I was subjected to 50 minutes of ferocious cross-examination,
>> while he escaped anything similar because I had no legal representation.
>> The case lasted for four hours. I felt as though I was on trial. It was
>> unbalanced. It seemed unfair. It left me shaken. Against the odds, I
>> won.
>
>What on earth did you think would happen?
>
>Did you think that legal principles would have no part whatsoever to play in
>it?
>
>Did you really think they wouldn't be entitled to cross-examine you?
>
>Did you think that you would walz in and say "My decorator owes me £XXX" and
>the Judge would say "OK then"?
>
>In my experience, the DDJ always protects the interests of the LIP.
>
I was always under the inpression ( In Scotland anyway ) that
cases in the Small Claims Court were held in private between the
Sheriff and the pursuer ,then between the Sheriff and the
Defendant and then the Sheriff gave his decision either then or
at a later date but maybe I am m istaken.
Stuart
---------
Remove YOURPANTS before E-mailing Me
The TERMinator
"Stuart" <stu...@shawsYOURPANTS2000.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1nltlu4nic0jffgpj...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 17 Aug 2002 14:21:10 +0100, "Dr. Dave"
> <da...@astles.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> In court legal jargon rained on me like hailstones as his barrister
> >> talked about my having "waived rights", "contemporaneous matters"
> >> and the need to "narrow down the issues in the interest of her
> >> client". I was subjected to 50 minutes of ferocious cross-examination,
> >> while he escaped anything similar because I had no legal
representation.
> >> The case lasted for four hours. I felt as though I was on trial. It was
> >> unbalanced. It seemed unfair. It left me shaken. Against the odds, I
> >> won.
> >
> >What on earth did you think would happen?
> >
> >Did you think that legal principles would have no part whatsoever to play
in
> >it?
> >
> >Did you really think they wouldn't be entitled to cross-examine you?
> >
and
> >the Judge would say "OK then"?
> >
> >In my experience, the DDJ always protects the interests of the LIP.
> >
>
> I was always under the inpression ( In Scotland anyway ) that
> cases in the Small Claims Court were held in private between the
> Sheriff and the pursuer ,then between the Sheriff and the
> Defendant and then the Sheriff gave his decision either then or
> at a later date but maybe I am m istaken.
> Stuart
> ---------
>
> Remove YOURPANTS before E-mailing Me
In England the system is completely different]
John O
Ye-es. I fear that big companies do try and get away with (legal) murder at
times.
One of their favourites, nowadays, is to make it all but impossible to speak
with a mzanager, looping everything through under-empowered and vacuous
HelpDesks and Customer Services Teams. Service? Wot Service?
Anyway, what I have noticed, sadly, when querying many aspects of a
company's business procedures, is that these frontline staff are wont to
fall back on two lines. One, footling in the extreme, is 'thhat it is out
procedure'.
My usual response to that is that this conflicts with MY procedure, which
doesn't involve doing things this way.
The other defence which is, in amny ways, far more worrying, is when they
say: you have to do that, "Its the Law!!!".
This one is more and more frequent - and often it is a really misleading
version of the Law (if that). I have had one junior individual inform me
that a matter cannot be referred to their Compliance Officer because it is
not a DPA matter. When I asked why, she informed me that the DPA is only
about things like name and address, and as this wasn't, it didn't fall
within the scope of the Act.
On another occasion, a protracted procedural wrangle with an Insurance
Company went on nauseously because CS kept insisting that a particular
requirement was not because THEY wanted it, but because the Law required it.
The Killer Question must be, whenever these petty dictators try and
intimidate in this way, is to ask, sweetly: "Certainly. Which Act? Which
Section?"
And then to refuse to take the matter further until someone has come up with
an answer.
JohnJo
-----------------------------------------------
"Dr. Dave" <da...@astles.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1029590739.25755....@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> In my experience, the DDJ always protects the interests of the LIP.
>
That comment is an oversimplification. The DDJ (or DJ) should ensure that
LIPs are not at a disadvantage because of their ignorance of the law and
procedures. But the sort of litigant who gets my goat is the one who
begins; "of course, I know nothing about the law" and then refuses to accept
that Judges have to apply the law as it is not how the LIP would like it to
be.
Simple example from last week between two neighbours. One has a large tree
that overhangs his neighbour's garden. He refuses to cut it back and
ignores all approaches so neighbour gets a quote from a tree surgeon and
sends it to the tree-owner saying that unless you do the work, I will
instruct these people to do it in three weeks time.
Letter ignored like all others so neighbour gets the job done and sends bill
to tree-owner who naturally refuses to pay and is sued. Tree-owner's
defence: "We didn't instruct him to get the work done so if he's incurred
expense that's his problem". Tree-owner agrees that (a) branches were
overhanging; (b) he had refused to do work himself (c) that work was
actually done and (d) cost is reasonable.
Outcome? all over in 15 minutes
The TERMinator
"JohnJo" <john...@netscapenospam.net> wrote in message
news:ajnvqo$6p7$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
The most ridiculous story I have involved a firm of Solicitors!
I'm qualified and work in a company legal department; however, some
supermarket claims the grand sum of £35.00 from me!
Anyway get the claim; and it is for some (unspecified service) between May
1996 and May 2002!! No more details in the Statement of Case!! Anyway I put
in a procedural defence and indicate that the claim should be struck out or
(in the alternative) an order to the Claimant to amend (with costs) be made.
Nothing happens (oh and this is Northampton CCBC) until I am served with a
amended statement of case!!! Well they don't have permission; (needed under
part 17.2 of the CPR) so I 'bin' that and have words with the Court!
One month later I get sent a JUDGMENT IN DEFAULT!! I call the court and find
that the other side filed for default on the basis that I did not reply to
an amended statement of case that had not been sanctioned by the Court!!!!!!
Remember that the only time a default judgment can be entered is when one
fails to acknowledge service and file a defence!!!
So the moral here is that it is not just Litigants in Person that make a
hash of the rules; but some (more less respectful) firms of Solicitors quite
simply 'take the michael' and try it on!!! If I had not been qualified and
simply an LIP, then I would have (in all probability) been landed with an
unlawful judgment with no idea about what to do.
Anyway the judgment went following my ex-parte application and there is now
a 'bun fight' over costs!!
Any parishioners or LIP's have any other 'horror' stories from the
Northampton CCBC? Home of the 'make it up as they go along' version of the
CPR!!!!
Norbert
<sugarb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>The most ridiculous story I have involved a firm of Solicitors!
>
>I'm qualified and work in a company legal department; however, some
>
>Anyway get the claim; and it is for some (unspecified service) between May
>1996 and May 2002!! No more details in the Statement of Case!! Anyway I put
>in a procedural defence and indicate that the claim should be struck out or
>(in the alternative) an order to the Claimant to amend (with costs) be made.
>
>Nothing happens (oh and this is Northampton CCBC) until I am served with a
>amended statement of case!!! Well they don't have permission; (needed under
>part 17.2 of the CPR) so I 'bin' that and have words with the Court!
>
>One month later I get sent a JUDGMENT IN DEFAULT!! I call the court and find
>that the other side filed for default on the basis that I did not reply to
>an amended statement of case that had not been sanctioned by the Court!!!!!!
>Remember that the only time a default judgment can be entered is when one
>fails to acknowledge service and file a defence!!!
>
>So the moral here is that it is not just Litigants in Person that make a
>hash of the rules; but some (more less respectful) firms of Solicitors quite
>simply 'take the michael' and try it on!!! If I had not been qualified and
>simply an LIP, then I would have (in all probability) been landed with an
>unlawful judgment with no idea about what to do.
>
>Anyway the judgment went following my ex-parte application and there is now
>a 'bun fight' over costs!!
>
>Any parishioners or LIP's have any other 'horror' stories from the
>Northampton CCBC? Home of the 'make it up as they go along' version of the
>CPR!!!!
Shouldn't this have been transferred to your local court anyway, or is
that just true for Claims Online?
The TERMinator
> On Sun, 18 Aug 2002 17:28:14 +0000 (UTC), "The TERMinator"
> <sugarb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >The most ridiculous story I have involved a firm of Solicitors!
> >
> >I'm qualified and work in a company legal department; however, some
Not quite as simple; if you file a Defence in the CCBC then the other side
gets 28 days to 'make up its mind'. If they decide to proceed then (assuming
the defendant is an individual and the amount claimed is fixed) then the
matter is transferred to the Defendant's local court; however, in this case
(due to the ridiculous error) it never got that far. My application was
issued ex-parte therefore (at my request) it went straight to a local judge.
If I had issued on notice then it would have been transferred to the local
court.