As usual DEAL did not send the Directions Questionnaire to the defendant, only to the court. The defendant wrote to the court who were interested in the behaviour of the claimant, and asked for evidence of other hearings. The defendant therefore sent in copies of other orders from The Prankster's blogs.
DEAL failed to comply with the court's orders and so the claim was duly struck out. This was confirmed by phone with the courts...but later proved to be premature. DEAL paid the £55 hearing cost at the last minute so 15 days later the defendant turned up for the hearing. There the mystery deepened as to why DEAL bothered...DEAL had discontinued by email at 15:40 the day before.
is. The clerk stated this had happened to another case that day too. The defendant explained to the clerk that this was typical behaviour for DEAL and the clerk suggested they write to the court.
They did so and the court wrote to DEAL explaining that unless they contested the costs, they would be awarded in due course.
DEAL did contest the costs, so another hearing was held. Ironically they did send a person to this one, a paralegal from their London office. This proved just to be more wasted costs for DEAL and the judge awarded the full costs to the claimant.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
Remind me, when was barratry removed from the statute books as an offence?
ReplyDeleteFrom wikipedia, but thanks for the question. Another bit of useless information tucked away in my brain!
DeleteEngland and Wales
In England and Wales the common law offence of being a common barrator was abolished by section 13(1)(a) of the Criminal Law Act 1967.
History
Being a common barrator was an offence under the common law of England. It was classified as a misdemeanor. It consisted of "persistently stirring up quarrels in the Courts or out of them". It is doubtful whether in the ordinary way persons charged with commission of this offence were dealt with by indictment.[3]
In 1966 the Law Commission recommended that this offence be abolished.[4] They said that there had been no indictments for this offence for "many years" and that, as an indictable misdemeanor, it was "wholly obsolete".[3] Their recommendation was implemented by the Criminal Law Act 1967.