So was the outcome of a recent claim faced by our member where the Claimant (the consumer) failed to comply with not one, not two, but three specific directions of the court.
In addition, the Claimant had failed to comply with CPR Part 22.1 by omitting to include a statement of truth in his undated witness statement.
The judge found that such failures were “…serious and significant breaches” and after considering the court’s duty under CPR 3.1A, Article 6 ECHR, and the overriding objective, the claim against our member was struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(c).
One hopes this outcome signals a more robust and uncompromising approach from the judiciary to flagrant and repeated breaches of court directions and rules by lay consumers, but of course, by the same token, this applies to all parties to any proceedings. It is imperative that directions are complied with fully and on time. If you have any doubts, speak with Lawgistics Litigation.
Impression works with businesses across the automotive aftermarket supply chain such as parts suppliers, warehouse distributors, motor factors and independent garages. Covering all aspects of automotive aftermarket marketing, including social media, event management, customer newsletters and PR, Impression is able to quickly establish itself within a client’s business and work towards their objectives.
