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!

HaswentWebsites for dealers small and large

Composer is a next-gen automotive platform that has been designed from the ground up to give you an intuitive way to promote your stock. You have extensive stock management options, and you'll gain a brilliantly responsive new website to advertise your stock, starting at just £39.99/month.

Howard TilneyHead of Strategy / Legal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Your Evidence Is Vital

As opposing witnesses give different accounts of what has happened, some cases really will hinge on which version of events the judge prefers.

Claim Dismissed: No Proof of Fault at Purchase

Our member argued that numerous issues could have caused the overheating and ultimate failure.

Finance Company Unhappy with Court Ruling

The court found that the claim and particulars were inadequate and the finance company was told they had to submit a compliant claim/particulars.

Disclose or not to disclose, that is the question

It is imperative that you know what is required to be disclosed, when to disclose the documents, and what your legal duty is both before proceedings and when a claim is issued.

Court Rules Against ‘Serial Returner’ in Distance Selling Dispute

It is clear from his evidence that his true intention was that he wanted the ability to reject the car at a time of his choosing.

Detailed records avoid post-sale issues

The Claimant was only entitled to compensation for the cost of repairs to the locks, which were considered likely to have been faulty at the point of sale and was awarded £385.

Claimant failed to satisfy the burden of proof

No real evidence to suggest the extant problems with his vehicle were in any way related to the repairs that had been undertaken

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.