Hello my name is ***** ***** I will help you with this.
If you have paid the Claimant then you should write and inform the Court of when you did this.
The Claimant should then write to the court and say that the matter has been settled.
At this point the claim will be dismissed and you should receive notification through the pist
* post *
Can I clarify anything for you about this today please?
What form should I use to write to the court?
Is this a motion to dimiss
Can the claimant still proceed to court?
No, a motion to dismiss is in the USA
You are asking that the claim be formally dismissed.
No, the claimant can not still proceed because you have paid.
Therefore the Claimant must inform the Court that you have paid
Can the claimant still proceed to court and try to recover his expenses
The proceedings will then be ended.
If you have paid the debt and the fixed Court fees then the claim must end.
If you have not paid the Court fees then the Court can consider at the trial, just the issue of costs
I have not paid the court fees because I dispute the claim
Ok - well you will still need to attend Court.
BUT - the Court will ONLY consider the issue of the Court fees
Or the claimant may just be happy with payment and not worry about Court fees
Can I clarify anything else for you?
If I pay the original court fees (220) can the claimant come back and try to claim for further legal costs?
What is the value of the original claim?
Was it a fast track matter?
Or small claim?
Ok - in theory you are liable for fees up to the date you paid.
But the claimant may take a view depending on if they want the matter to end.
such as the claimants solicitors?
If they do not then the only argument at Court will be legal costs
So let me get this straight, I just write to the court (no forms) and show them that I paid the total amount, that's it right?
ok, thanks, ***** ***** do that .
Then the Claimant may take a view on costs and stop the claim
If not then the only issue would be costs at Court and not the principal Judgment.
Does that help?
Well not sure about the last bit, if I still dispute the claim and the claimant wants further costs and want to got o court, then won't the court need to consider the issues the wider case rather than just the costs
By paying I am not accepting the claimants claim, I just want him to go away
The issue would be whether the claimant is entitled to his costs
Surely he would need to proove his original claim first
Does it not depend on the judge awarding the case is the claimants favour
That is right. You can say you paid for commercial reasons and why the original claim was not justified.
Not sure that answers the question "Does it (costs) not depend on the judge awarding the case in the claimants favour?"
The Judge will look at the conduct of the parties etc.
The rules state:
Contents of this Part
(1) In Parts 44 to 47, unless the context otherwise requires –
‘authorised court officer’ means any officer of –
(i) the County Court;
(ii) a district registry;
(iii) the Family Court;
(iiia) the High Court; or
(iv) the Costs Office,
whom the Lord Chancellor has authorised to assess costs;
‘conditional fee agreement’ means an agreement enforceable under section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 19901;
‘costs’ includes fees, charges, disbursements, expenses, remuneration, reimbursement allowed to a litigant in person under rule 46.5 and any fee or reward charged by a lay representative for acting on behalf of a party in proceedings allocated to the small claims track;
‘costs judge’ means a taxing master of the Senior Courts;
‘Costs Office’ means the Senior Courts Costs Office;
‘costs officer’ means –
(i) a costs judge;
(ii) a District Judge; or
(iii) an authorised court officer;
‘detailed assessment’ means the procedure by which the amount of costs is decided by a costs officer in accordance with Part 47;
‘the Director (legal aid)’ means the person designated as the Director of Legal Aid Casework pursuant to section 4 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 20122, or a person entitled to exercise the functions of the Director;
‘fixed costs’ means costs the amounts of which are fixed by these rules whether or not the court has a discretion to allow some other or no amount, and include –
(i) the amounts which are to be allowed in respect of legal representatives’ charges in the circumstances set out in Section I of Part 45;
(ii) fixed recoverable costs calculated in accordance with rule 45.11;
(iii) the additional costs allowed by rule 45.18;
(iv) fixed costs determined under rule 45.21;
(v) costs fixed by rules 45.37 and 45.38;
‘free of charge’ has the same meaning as in section 194(10) of the 2007 Act;
‘fund’ includes any estate or property held for the benefit of any person or class of person and any fund to which a trustee or personal representative is entitled in that capacity;
‘HMRC’ means HM Revenue and Customs;
‘legal aid’ means civil legal services made available under arrangements made for the purposes of Part 1of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012;
‘paying party’ means a party liable to pay costs;
‘the prescribed charity’ has the same meaning as in section 194(8) of the 2007 Act;
‘pro bono representation’ means legal representation provided free of charge;
‘receiving party’ means a party entitled to be paid costs;
‘summary assessment’ means the procedure whereby costs are assessed by the judge who has heard the case or application;
‘VAT’ means Value Added Tax;
‘the 2007 Act’ means the Legal Services Act 20073.
(‘Legal representative’ has the meaning given in rule 2.3).
(2) The costs to which Parts 44 to 47 apply include –
(a) the following costs where those costs may be assessed by the court –
(i) costs of proceedings before an arbitrator or umpire;
(ii) costs of proceedings before a tribunal or other statutory body; and
(iii) costs payable by a client to their legal representative; and
(b) costs which are payable by one party to another party under the terms of a contract, where the court makes an order for an assessment of those costs.
(3) Where advocacy or litigation services are provided to a client under a conditional fee agreement, costs are recoverable under Parts 44 to 47 notwithstanding that the client is liable to pay the legal representative’s fees and expenses only to the extent that sums are recovered in respect of the proceedings, whether by way of costs or otherwise.
Back to top
(1) The court has discretion as to –
(a) whether costs are payable by one party to another;
(b) the amount of those costs; and
(c) when they are to be paid.
(4) In deciding what order (if any) to make about costs, the court will have regard to all the circumstances, including –
(a) the conduct of all the parties;
(b) whether a party has succeeded on part of its case, even if that party has not been wholly successful; and
(c) any admissible offer to settle made by a party which is drawn to the court’s attention, and which is not an offer to which costs consequences under Part 36 apply.
(5) The conduct of the parties includes –
(a) conduct before, as well as during, the proceedings and in particular the extent to which the parties followed the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct or any relevant pre-action protocol;
(b) whether it was reasonable for a party to raise, pursue or contest a particular allegation or issue;
(c) the manner in which a party has pursued or defended its case or a particular allegation or issue; and
(d) whether a claimant who has succeeded in the claim, in whole or in part, exaggerated its claim.
Therefore the Judge does not have to consider the substnative claim.
But if you want the matter to be gone away as a whole then you should pay the Claimants costs
But as I said the Claimant may take a view given if they have recovered the substantive claim
Yes, the amount was never disputed, however I was unable to pay because the claimant was insisting on a payment method which I felt put me at risk. At a hearing about directions the judge tried to argue that the person owed the money can make any demands that he felt like in terms of how the money was paid. I stood my ground and the Judge respected that but he said my case was weak. Specifically there was an transfer between the claimant and I in an offshore bank, no UK tax implications. When the claimant asked for the money back he insisted I pay it into a UK bank account. I objected as I felt it could expose me to an accusation of assisting the claimant with tax avoidance and I requested the claimant provide an offshore bankaccount in his name to recieve the return payment
the claimant has tried numerous times to coerce me into paying to offshore banks in other peoples names (not his own) and I objected again because I was not paying the money to the claimant and didn;t know these people and couldnt be expected to trust them
So you agreed you owed it but disagreed on how it was to be paid.
The claimants claim is that I am refusing to pay, my defence is that I have offered to pay, I have never refused to pay however I don't agree that putting myself at risk is part of my responsibility
Well as I have indicated above if you have paid the principle debt then the only issue is going to be that of costs.
The Judge can take conduct into consideration
What I need advice on is, did I have defense?
If you accept you owed the money then it makes no difference (Unless it was a contractual term otherwise) whether you wanted to pay over time
If there was a contract that stated you could pay over time that is different.
Can the claimant insist that pay to whoever, whereever (country) he likes, irrespective of my interests
There was no contract
If there is not then the default position is that it is owed immediately.
timing wasnt the issue
Yes, if the debt was owing and no agreement to pay by installments was agreed
are you saying "yes" to the question "Can the claimant insist that I pay to whoever, whereever (country) he likes, irrespective of my interests or risks to me?"
Give me an example, because I don't understand how someone making a claim for payment can put you at risk
You accept you owe the money, is that right?
I accept I owe the money , right.
Ok. So what is the risk?
Example, If I pay the money into the UK and the Claimant does not declare the income, the inland revenue might find the claimant guilty of tax evasion and come after me as an accomplice
Well I don't necessarily see that point.
But what was the situation in THIS case.
I dont understand the last question
You gave an example. I am asking what was the reason for refusing to pay in THIS case
That was one of them.
So because he wanted you to pay money abroad you were worried that he was evading tax?
Did you know he would be evading tax?
Sort of , because he was repartiating the money I suspected he was evading tax, but I didnt know it, my worry was that if he was accused that I could be also implicated. I felt it was concern with merit and not unreasonable to ask for a safer method
He was coercing me to repatriate the money
Did you inform HMRC?
Why not, if you suspected he was evading?
Its not that he was evading previous, I didn't trust him not to do it with the money from the transaction I was dealing with.
Well you wouldnt be implicated.
So I dont think the argument he may not be paying tax in the UK so that is why I did not pay him, would really be a defence.
Because its a matter between HMRC and the claimant. Not you
Thats what the judge said
There you go then
So sadly you need to see if the Claimant takes a view that you have paid and therefore stops the claim
I am sorry if this is not the answer you want and certainly not the one I want to give you, but I have a duty to be honest
No, you have been very helpful, thankyou
I am sorry its not better news
Can I help with anything else today?
Don't worry about the "sorry", I'd rather have it straight and true
No, we're all good thankyou
Thank you. If I could invite you to rate my service before you go - the button should be at the bottom of the screen
If you need more help please click reply