Claim struck out due to serious and significant breaches…

legal updates

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.

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 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.

DMS NavigatorDealer Management System software for Car Sales, Aftersales and eCommerce

Our dealers use us to help them be more Efficient and Profitable!

You can use our Dealer and Lead Management software to integrate all dealership departments, both online and physical ; providing all in-house functions; Invoicing, Stock Management, Accounting and Marketing as well as interfacing for advertising, ecommerce and more.

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.