Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

court staff v preacher

Judicial review, activities of government, local and national etc.

court staff v preacher

Postby preacherman » Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:26 pm

:lol:

are they stupid, it isnt me...

claim deemed served on 8th August.

defendant has until 22nd August to reply.

deference filed on 5th September (out of time)

notice sent to me that defendant filed acknowledgment of service on 4th September.

I apply for default Judgment, court says: they filed an acknowledgment of service on time, therefore acquiring further 14 days for filling their defence.

whats that all about some secret rule I am unaware of?
User avatar
preacherman
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:09 pm

Re: court staff v preacher

Postby atticus » Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:26 pm

Courts should always be treated with deference.

If the acknowledgment was in time, then so was the defence.

Or would you prefer to have a judgment that will be set aside with costs against you? Isn't it better to focus on the issues in the case instead of some sideshow?
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19714
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: court staff v preacher

Postby preacherman » Sat Oct 21, 2017 4:14 am

I know that courts should be treated with respect, I was going to say I am only having a bit of fun,which is the truth, but Dad said 'always'...

sorry Dad... :?

anyway its not a sideshow.its principle firstly, and secondly, correctness.

Like I said unless there is some Golden rule I have missed, the defence was out of time. if it was due on 22nd August, then an acknowledgment that was filed on 4th September, does not make a late defence right, or give 14 days extra time?!

if it helps you, September comes after August currently!
I am entitled to default judgment..

the reference to “a defence” in CPR 12.3(2)(a) must be a reference to a Defence which has either been served within the time permitted by the Rules or in respect of which an extension of time has been granted. Where a Defence is served late, unless and until an extension has been granted, a document purporting to be a Defence is not in fact a Defence for the purposes of CPR 12.3(2)(a). To this extent, the note at 15.4.2 of the 2016 edition of the White Book is, in my judgment, wrong.”The decision of Deputy Master Pickering in Billington -v- Davies [2016] EWHC 1919 (Ch)
User avatar
preacherman
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:09 pm

Re: court staff v preacher

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Sat Oct 21, 2017 7:02 am

The period for filing a defence
15.4
(1) The general rule is that the period for filing a defence is –
(a) 14 days after service of the particulars of claim; or
(b) if the defendant files an acknowledgment of service under Part 10, 28 days after service of the particulars of claim.
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6294
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Re: court staff v preacher

Postby preacherman » Sat Oct 21, 2017 11:52 am

thanks stoaty.

filing a defence out of time, then an acknowledgment, does not really fit in with that.
User avatar
preacherman
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:09 pm

Re: court staff v preacher

Postby preacherman » Mon Oct 30, 2017 3:03 pm

what do you make of this then:
I have investigated your complaint and want to provide you with an explanation. As you are aware
the claim was issued on 3 August 2017 and allocated a date of service of 8 August 2017. The
defendant therefore had a period in which they were ‘protected’ from judgment being entered
against them. Defendants are initially granted 14 days from the date of service by which to
respond with an Acknowledgment of Service (AOS) or a Defence. If an AOS is filed they then
have a further 14 days by which to file their Defence, totalling 28 days from the date of service.
The defendant filed their AOS on 4 September 2017. You are correct in stating that this was out of
the ‘protected’ 14 day period however, as a Request for Judgment had not been received the
AOS can be accepted and additional 14 days granted. The defendant therefore then had until 5
September 2017 to file their Defence. The defendants defence was received on 5 September
2017, the final day of the ‘protected’ period.

does not add up to me :
The period for filing an acknowledgment of service
10.3
(1) The general rule is that the period for filing an acknowledgment of service is –
(a) where the defendant is served with a claim form which states that particulars of claim are to follow, 14 days after service of the particulars of claim; and
(b) in any other case, 14 days after service of the claim form.
User avatar
preacherman
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:09 pm

Re: court staff v preacher

Postby atticus » Mon Oct 30, 2017 8:18 pm

There you are: Defence in time.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19714
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: court staff v preacher

Postby preacherman » Tue Oct 31, 2017 6:36 am

I am afraid I cant work that out.

particulars of claim served with claim=

b) in any other case, 14 days after service of the claim form.(to file AOS).

how can you file it (AOS) out of time but then get fourteen days extra to get in your defence (without seeking extension of time). I cant find that rule.
User avatar
preacherman
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:09 pm

Re: court staff v preacher

Postby atticus » Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:23 am

Would you prefer to have a judgment that will be set aside with costs against you? Isn't it better to focus on the issues in the case?
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19714
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: court staff v preacher

Postby preacherman » Wed Nov 01, 2017 6:14 pm

atticus wrote:Would you prefer to have a judgment that will be set aside with costs against you? Isn't it better to focus on the issues in the case?


your answering a question with a question!

I guess it depends on how you look at it. unrelated but:I lost my house but later the court of appeal found that the agreements the sharks made were not enforceable, to late for me it seemed.

If I have a right for a default Judgment then its no different to the defendant applying to have the default set aside, then win or lose decides who pays costs. I am just seeking that right.

its down to defendant to decide whether to apply to set aside the default etc. it seems there are mitigating issues in any matter which go towards whether you get the funds you are owed.

I cant see how the court are saying the AOS was in time when it was not.
User avatar
preacherman
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:09 pm

Next

Return to Administrative Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest