Ask a Law Question, Get an Answer ASAP!
Hello and thank you for your question. I will be very pleased to assist you. I'm a practicing lawyer in England with over 10 years experience.
May I ask the amount of the financial claim please?
There is no claim yet
Thanks. The reason for myy question is that the rules on cross examination differ depending upon which track the claim is allocated to which is determined principally by the amount being claimed. Do you know the amount of the prospective claim?
thats interesting ok lets say £100,000 and the claimant is a bank seeking foreclosure for none payment
Thanks. The court rules in respect of trials are contained in the civil procedure rules. Part 1 of the CPR provides for an overriding objective of the court which is principally to ensure the just disposal of proceedings to ensure fairness on all parties. Specifically it provides:[that the court will] Deal with a case justly and at proportionate cost includes, so far as is practicable –
(a) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing;
(b) saving expense;
(c) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate –
(i) to the amount of money involved;
(ii) to the importance of the case;
(iii) to the complexity of the issues; and
(iv) to the financial position of each party;
(d) ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly;
(e) allotting to it an appropriate share of the court’s resources, while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases; and
(f) enforcing compliance with rules, practice directions and orders.
Accordingly the CPR does provide the basis for you to have a fair trial as an overriding objective.
The rules for cross examination are different depending upon which track your claim is allocated to. If you are claiming less than £10K this will typically be allocated to the small claims track which provides for limited scope for cross examination though the judge can allow witnesses to be questioned. Witnesses cannot normally be compelled to attend small claims claims.
So my question is if the plaintiff is a corporation not a (wo)man therefore unable to be in court how would I be expected to have a fair hearing ?
There is much wider scope for cross examination on fast and multi track claims which is likely to be the track the proposed case you refer to above may be allocated to. You can ask permission from the court to require a witness who provides evidence to the court to be called to the court to give oral evidence and to cross examine that witness. The judge has powers under the CPR to require a witness to attend for the above purpose so far as he considers it is necessary and proportionate to the claim.
In terms of a corporation, the same principles apply whereby the company can be compelled to supply appropriate representatives to provide oral evidence in support of evidence it submits.
e.g. if a company supplies evidence claiming "Y" then you can require the appropriate individual from that company that claims "Y" to attend court to be cross examined on his evidence.
What I'm getting at is case say if case Joe Bloggs Vs Halifax bank if halifax bank fails to turn up surely there is no claim to answer to ?
That isn't quite the position. First of all we need to distinguish between witness statements - i.e. where a company employee or officer makes a statement as to the case and other types of evidence i.e. copies of bank statements and so on. The bank can supply non witness statement evidence and this stands on its own merit. You can challenge it but it is what it is. No witness is required to attend in order to justify such evidence but the bank failes to send representation it is not able to respond to any challenges you potentially make to such evidnece supplied. Then there is witness statement evidence. The CPR provides (except for small claims) that where a party submits a witness statement then it must be prepared for that witness to attend to give oral evidence on the statment and be potentially cross examined. If it does not then the witness can only be entered as hearsay evidence as opposed to evidence in chief. Hearsay evidence has a much lower evidential value. Therefore in failing to supply a witness to be cross examined if necessary on a witness statement the value of that witness statement will be much diminished.
Companys are treated no differently in this respect than individuals as a company is made up of individuals.
Is there anything above I can clarify for you?
I am hoping to move the matter (should it arise) to the queens bench to be heard man on man is this something you have come across.
Sorry could you clarify - man on man?
i a man a living breathing soul as apposed to ones legal fiction MR JOE BLOGGS vs HALIFAX BANK PLC sat in queens bench under common law jurisdiction
Yes you can seek to have a multi track claim hear in the High Court QB division. It is realtively unusual for litigants to appear in person as opposed to with representation in the High Court but it is possible.
Is there anything else I can help you with?
I dont suppose you happen to know anyone who can provide more assistance on this matter
Do you mean representation or something else please?
I do not need representation but I'm looking to find someone who can point me in the direction of legislation for a number of questions i have
for example what forms the basis of a lawful contract
is it written in legislation
You can consider positing a new question on this service. Either I or colleagues would be happy to assist with such questions.
ok thank you for you help