it was originally allocated to small claims track .But after a month and after i filed my defense the claimant made an application for the striking out the case. In the same application they have also applied for "an order that there be stay of both the claims and counter claim pending determination of the issues referred to FTT.
My questions is the hearing for this application is part of the small track or not?
The judge does not seem to think so. on the first hearing for this application, the judge awarded £15000.00 cost and issued and order for me to pay, while their charges on their claim form was about £3000.00
I have asked to set aside the judgement. The hearing is tomorrow. is there a law i can refer to tomorrow to indicate that this should still to be treated as small claim and the legal fess should be limited.
What is the maximum of the legal fees for the small track?
can i find this rule "civil procedure rules 26" if I google it?
sorry I do not understand, they have been granted for the case to be struck out and they have claimed I had behaved unreasonably, because i had not sent a doctor letter for my illness on the day of the court.
but why have i been charged 15000, if it should be maximum 175.00 legal fees.
The judge awarded Counsel's fees and the claimant's legal fees, relying on the counsel statement that my defense and counter claim was unreasonable and they had to spent time reading it and working on it.
the judge at the time said in his decision, that what he was going to do was that to reduce the claimant legal fees from £23000, to £15000 as they had to do work and we have to pay it within 28 days, but his Order that the defense and counter claim to be struck out remain. he said that he had to decide if the costs are claimed on indemnity basis, are they nevertheless proportionate.....
1- So still you believe because he struck out the case, the cost should have been £175.00 regardless what was the legal costs on the original claim of around £3000?
2-So is it better for me not to argue against the strucking out the case if I do not want to pay the legal fees?
Sorry my last question is if I argue against it, then wouldn't that bring their legal costs to light like as you said if it is struck out i do not have to pay any legal costs apart from £175.00 but if I win the argument then I have to fight for the legal fees if I do not win my case.
could I also ask, if I argued against it and won the argument for the case not to be strike out, will the case goes back to where it was, as if I didn't argue, the striking out of the case, the matter is finished and as far as you believe, I should not pay a penny more than £175.00
Is this the case even if I was not present at the hearing when the judge ordered the case to be struck out?
Please ignore the other question.
Yes Thank you
Sorry forgot to ask if the claimant, claiming their costs on an indemnity basis, using our lease, does it not override the CPR 26 & 45.4 rule?
But apparently the court has, considering the provisions of CPR44.5 (amount of costs where costs payable under a contract)
so ok, I should say CPR rules do not apply to small claim?
however you did mention the CPR 26 & 45.4, last night, that I can use it.
and the cost rules are CPR 45.4? RIGHT
Sorry to have not rated you, just wanted to come back on the same thread, so I wouldn't need to explain all. I had asked to set aside a judgement for the orders of striking out my counter claim and the £15000.00 cost. At my hearing :
1- The order of the striking out the counter claim stayed, as the judge convinced me to drop it as he thought there was no cause for action.
2- there was a lot of argument from the Counsel about the cost and about the contractual right to receive cost. Although I did say I thought, our lease or my contract would not override CPR 26 & CPR 45.4, as they are clear about the costs.
The rule 27.14 2G & 44.5 was what they based their argument on.
There was another hearing set for this.
What do you think about these rules, specially CPR 27.14 2G in page 876?
Any chance of answer?
Sorry, could you read my question again as you haven't answered my question.
Yes the claimant counsel has argued that I had behaved unreasonably and that I had a hopeless claim. The new judge had all the paper work and all my letters to the court and telephone calls I made to the court that it was indeed not me behaving unreasonably.
But the claimant said that I should have made them aware of my communications to the court. I didn't because I did not think asking the court about setting aside a case and inquiring about it was something that I should have made them aware.
Is that considered behaved unreasonably?
Also the judge also thought my case was not good enough to claim for compensation for damages so basically did think my counter claim was hopeless.
The other side had applied for striking out and it was stuck out.
If the judge decides I have not behaved unreasonably, then apparently, they can claim it under CPR 44.5, which does allow costs under contract.
How can I argue this as it seems they can claim it and there is nothing in CPR 26, to say they cannot apply this rule. CPR 44.3 seem to allow costs on indemnity basis. Is there any rule to state that these rules cannot override CPR 26?
I did not get a answer to my question but i am going to close this and open a new question. it does not give me the option to rate.