A somewhat unique court case this – and we shall wait to see which way it goes. But what do you think?
A fairly mundane start. Our client, a Motor Dealer (MD) sells a car to a Finance Company (FC) who, in turn, supply it to their Customer (CU). Nothing unusual there. The CU alleges the car is defective and issues court proceedings for the cost of repair – about £3,600 – against our client exclusively. The MD’s position is that there is no claim against them because they did not sell the car to him – only to the FC.
Even though it is small claims, the CU instructs solicitors. We convince the solicitors that if the case proceeds against the MD, their client, the CU, will have to pay the MD’s advocate’s attendance costs at the hearing because the CU had been repeatedly told of the lack of contractual ties between him and the MD. Costs can be awarded against a party in a small claims hearings if the judge feels that a party has conducted themselves unreasonably.
The CU’s solicitor agrees with us, draws up a formal consent order that is signed by all parties, it’s sent to the court, and the order is paid for by the CU. The consent order was for the CU to discontinue the claim against the MD in exchange for no attendance costs order. The claim against our client is thus no more – it has been discontinued. Yippee!
The CU goes away and brings the exact same claim exclusively against the FC. In fairness, the FC defend the claim because they don’t believe the car was defective. We are subsequently told that at the hearing, the CU started to blame our client, the MD, for some alleged wrongdoing on their part as regards to some warranty that was given. The judge – oblivious to all of the above – tells the CU that he is allowed to make an application to the court to ask for permission for the MD to be joined as a defendant to proceedings!
The CU has made the application. Naturally, we have helped our client oppose the application on the basis that it is wholly inappropriate for a claimant to formally discontinue a claim against a defendant – and then request for them to be reintroduced as a party to the same claim 10 months later.
So, will the court allow the CU to reintroduce our client as a defendant? Despite the CU having previously told the court that he did not want to continue the claim he previously made against the MD? What do you think will happen?
Don’t rush with your answers though. The hearing to decide this issue only is set for, er, June 2023!
On average 55 vulnerabilities are identified daily.
What can I do?
Review your organisations priorities and ask ‘can we afford a breach?’. What do I do during an incident? Who do I involve? When do I involve the ICO?
If you’re unable to answers these questions, you need help from the experts.
