Ambush! – Application to revisit determined arguments and introduce new claims refused

legal updates

The judge merely allowed for fixed costs in accordance with the Small Claims Track cost regime

Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down

This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.

The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.

The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.

Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.

If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.

All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.

Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.

So was the outcome of a recent hearing listed to determine whether repairs previously ordered by the court had been fully and properly completed, and to consider the issue of costs, where unbeknown to our member, the Claimant (consumer) had made a further application, effectively seeking to ambush our member before the court.

Fortunately, our member was represented by an agent solicitor at court, as advised and instructed by Lawgistics, who was able to “think on her feet” to adapt quickly and effectively to counter against such application.

The judge considered the agent’s submissions on behalf of our member and the judge’s notes from the previous hearing, and agreed the application made by the Claimant, who had been unnecessarily difficult throughout, was wholly inappropriate and should be refused. The judge merely allowed for fixed costs in accordance with the Small Claims Track cost regime, much to the annoyance of the Claimant since he was then unable to recover his solicitor’s costs.

In making her decision, the judge explained she had accepted the previous judge’s decision, which effectively disposed of the proceedings as it would be wrong to revisit the claim and grant the application, especially as new issues had now been raised by the Claimant, after the event.

Such was the Claimant’s ire that he threatened to start a separate claim to bring forth his “new” claims, if necessary.

Good luck!

WeRecruit Auto LtdPermanent Automotive Recruitment from an experienced and trustworthy recruitment partner.

We cover roles within all departments and sectors of the Automotive industry, and are here to listen to your specific needs and find the most suitable candidates to fit your business.

Howard TilneyHead of Strategy / Legal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

To Be or Not To Be Remains the Legal Question

The Claimant had sought to reject a commercial van that he had been using for business purposes but alleged that he was a consumer.

Always Deal with Court Documents

This cost our member an application fee to the court, plus a legal representative at court for the hearing.

Warning to all! You must follow the orders of the court!

Had the consumer been reasonable, this issue could have been resolved without going to court.

Claim struck out for non-attendance

A twelve year old van, had been sold to a business without a warranty and more than 130,000 miles on the clock.

Consequential loss: “There has to be a limit for which the defendant is held responsible.”

The consumer argued that she was unable to buy another vehicle since she could not afford one, hence the scale of her claim for transport costs.

What? You want me to pay after nearly 6 years?

After 5 years, 8 months, and 41,000 miles, there was a problem with the vehicle, and it ultimately required a new engine costing £4,600.

Don’t be late!!!

As our member was leaving the court, the Claimant arrived, approximately 15 minutes after the allotted time.

Get in touch

Complete the form to get in touch or via our details below:

Phone
01480 455500
Address

Vinpenta House
High Causeway
Whittlesey
Peterborough
PE7 1AE

By submitting this quote you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy & Cookies Policy.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.