An eventful small claims hearing

legal updates

Discover how a simple oversight in witness representation and off-screen coaching at a remote hearing can dramatically impact legal outcomes, underscoring the critical need for adherence to procedural rules and proper pre-action conduct in our latest insightful article.

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.

A recent remote small claims hearing highlighted issues with witness evidence. The Defendant company, our member, sent a different representative to the hearing than he who had signed the witness statement, due to illness. As a result, the only evidence was the witness statement and no testimony was given. 

At the same remote hearing, the Claimant was being coached off-screen by a third party, which was so obvious that the judge had to explain his duty to him. Part 32 of the Civil Procedure Rules governs evidence in civil proceedings, in particular, part 32.4(1) which states:

“A witness statement is a written statement signed by a person which contains the evidence which that person would be allowed to give orally.”  

The Claimant in the case issued proceedings after he was refused a full refund for his vehicle, despite our member having offered a repair, which was the only remedy available after 30 days of ownership.

The judge found that:

  • The Claimant was not entitled to a full refund.
  • The claim was inflated.
  • The second diagnosis was confirmation of the first and could not be claimed.
  • The Claimant had not provided adequate opportunity, as required under the CRA 2015, for the Defendant to diagnose the fault.

The Claimant was awarded £600 of a £5000 claim. However, the judge awarded £800 in costs, the submission cost, and the hearing fee. Given the submission cost is proportionate to the sum of the claim, and only 10% of the claim was awarded, permission to appeal the point was sought. Permission to appeal was refused on the grounds that as part of the claim had been granted, costs should follow. 

Despite the issue about costs, our member was happy with the outcome having successfully argued the Claimant had not given them the opportunity to avoid litigation by appropriate pre-action conduct. 

We always advise our members that, even though the Defendant may be a limited company in the majority of cases, the person attending the hearing to give evidence must be the same person who gave and signed the witness statement. In this case, our member was happy with the outcome, but the consequences of not having the opportunity to speak and ask questions of the other party at a hearing can be detrimental.

Impression Communications LtdPutting the motive in automotive

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.

Polly DaviesLegal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

From initial complaint to court claim form – let us help you

You can feel assured that court deadlines are attended to with the required attention and specialism.

Is it time to ditch “Dear Sirs”?

Clearly, “Dear Sirs” is old-fashioned, but is it sexist?

Location, Location, Mislocation: A costly oversight in court attendance

What the unfortunate Claimants (husband and wife) had not appreciated, was that the hearing was listed for the court at Central London.

Court re-instates a claim because of its own error!

One wonders how many times the courts have made the same error.

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.

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.