A life lesson on listening to the right people…
In January 2023, Philip Nam was in Birmingham for a 3-day trial, which was cut short, due to being adjourned at lunchtime on the first day.
Read more from Philip to find out what happened, and the moral of the story!
‘The claimant (my client) was a Litigant-in-Person and I warned him to pay the trial fee. He is based abroad most of the time, so he emailed the County Court on the 2nd December to ask them to contact him so he could pay the court fee over the phone, which was due on the 18th December. They said; “yes we will contact you when we are able to, as we are really busy.”
Unfortunately, he didn’t pay it and the court didn’t contact him.
He kept chasing and chasing (on my persistence that he should do so) but he didn’t pay it.
The court didn’t take the money off him because they didn’t ring him.
On the 24th December (surprisingly), the Court emailed the defendant (only) to confirm that the claim had been struck out.
The client was still chasing the court between Christmas and New Year to pay the court fee. During that period, received written confirmation from a court officer saying; “the claim has not been struck out, don’t worry, the trial will still go ahead.”
On the 29th December, the defendant told the claimant that the claim had been struck out in accordance with the order and the rules.
The trial fee was eventually paid by credit card on the 3rd January. Then on the 4th January, the Court officer notified the Clamant that the claim had not been struck out and the trial was still going ahead.
(Just to add, there is also a counterclaim in this too. The claim was worth £150,000 plus interest. The counterclaim is £50,000.)
By January 3rd the defendant had “downed tools” in respect of their preparations for the claim (but continued their preparations for the counterclaim).
Before the trial began, the issue of whether the claim had been struck out was dealt with. The claimant, with the help of Direct Access Counsel, submitted that the claim had not been struck out because the court staff had told him it was not struck out. The defendant’s submission was the court staff did not have any power or jurisdiction to go behind the court order or the rules.
The judge found that it had been struck out, because it is the law, but given the very good reason for not paying the court fee on time, granted relief from sanction.
Due to the Defendant “downing tools”, they were not ready for the trial of the claim and therefore the 3-day trial was adjourned until February.
So, what’s the moral of this story?
Well we all know that the court staff are doing their jobs to the best of their ability, but you shouldn’t make decisions based on what they are telling you.
The rules are the rules.
The law is the law.
Only judges can make decisions on whether a claim is struck out or reinstated. Court staff cannot give legal advice and cannot, of their own violation, go behind court orders and the rules.