CRT v Andy Wingfield Update

[Tony Dunkley]

 

The reason behind that non-intervention within time, was down to their being unprepared to act until the certificate of Legal Aid had been confirmed.

 

Why they would think that they could, even at that point, direct the conduct of the litigation while in breach of the most elemental directives - whatever the reason - is certainly a matter of curiosity.

 

Given the reluctance to run up any chargeable time at Solicitors hourly rates prior to getting the Legal Aid certificate, perhaps the simple expedient of having the Acknowledgement of Service papers filled in by the Office cleaner would have been in Andy W's best interests, and in the event that Legal Aid had been refused, then the same Office cleaner could have represented Andy at the Hearing, in all probability with, at the very least, a comparable outcome.

Edited November 28, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Graham.m]

 

Given the reluctance to run up any chargeable time at Solicitors hourly rates prior to getting the Legal Aid certificate, perhaps the simple expedient of having the Acknowledgement of Service papers filled in by the Office cleaner would have been in Andy W's best interests, and in the event that Legal Aid had been refused, then the same Office cleaner could have represented Andy at the Hearing, in all probability with an, at the very least, comparable outcome.

 

From memory there used to be an emergency legal aid certificate, done over the phone, to deal with time sensitive issues. Do I assume it no longer exists?

[Rufford]

 

Given the reluctance to run up any chargeable time at Solicitors hourly rates prior to getting the Legal Aid certificate, perhaps the simple expedient of having the Acknowledgement of Service papers filled in by the Office cleaner would have been in Andy W's best interests, and in the event that Legal Aid had been refused, then the same Office cleaner could have represented Andy at the Hearing, in all probability with, at the very least, a comparable outcome.

The office cleaner is probably the only member of staff that does a proper days work...

[NigelMoore]

Could there be a case against the defence lawyers for failing to meet CPRs in respect of disputing the validity of using section 8 ?

 

Possibly [i am presuming you meant to refer to CPR Part 8, not s.8 of the 1983 Act].

 

I haven’t taken the time to set out the chronology. The judge says that Andy’s solicitors “gave notice of acting to the court on 16 September 2015.” The Legal Aid Certificate was dated 15 September, but noting that “date included” was 30 September 2015. I have no idea what that latter means.

 

From what the solicitor both said and wrote to me, it was obvious that they did not act positively until they had the confirmation, which could easily, perhaps, have not been until the week before the hearing [if the 30th Sep. was the date of confirmation].

 

The proceedings were commenced, according the judgment, on 4 September 2015. 14 days from service would then, at the latest, require response by the 18th. The only response [as to who was acting for Andy] was filed the day after the earliest possible confirmation date of approved legal aid.

 

So however scant notice, they could have filed the ‘Acknowledgement of Service’/application to strike out s8 proceedings and revert to Part 7, at the same time – or at least made brief reference to the situation, with promise to add as appropriate.

 

Undoubtedly, in my opinion [accepting that I do not have all the facts], there seems a case to answer to Andy for. I have just had him on the phone for ages about this, him not quite understanding what has gone on.

 

I have advised that he should sit still until an answer comes respecting the request for permission to appeal. Then, if he so chooses [in the expectation that the appeal will be refused], he could take action against his representatives for failing in their duty of care and for gross professional misconduct. The record of the transcripts and the judgment would seem to provide all the evidence needed for him to do that.

 

His best bet would be to find some ‘no win no fee’ firm of vultures to pursue that - if, on that available evidence, they believed that he had a sound case for compensation. How you would determine compensation in such a case I cannot begin to imagine.

Edited November 28, 2015 by NigelMoore

[Graham.m]

Sorry Nigel you were quite correct too many 8s.

 

Looking at Part 7.5, many years since I had to

 

7.5

(1) Where the claim form is served within the jurisdiction, the claimant must complete the step required by the following table in relation to the particular method of service chosen, before 12.00 midnight on the calendar day four months after the date of issue of the claim form.

 

From memory the issue date is that date that the Claimant signs the form, then the form can sit for 4 months. Now in the old days the Claim was delivered to the Court and the Court office arranged the service. Has that changed and the Claimant serves?

 

The Friday 4^th September may not be relevant anyway because there is the time taken to get the papers to the Defendant, if served by post, a service that delivers them on the next business day. Assuming it was posted on the 4^th September the next business day was Monday 7^th September.

 

Part 8.3

(1) The defendant must –

(a) file an acknowledgment of service in the relevant practice form not more than 14 days after service of the claim form; and

(b ) serve the acknowledgment of service on the claimant and any other party.

 

Now from memory that day of service is not the first day of the 14 days, on the basis that the actual time of delivery is not known. I suggest that delivery by post would have been the 7^th September. That would make the reply due date by the 22^nd September 2015. So the solicitors had until the 22^nd and if they had a verbal advise of legal aid on the 15^th September which I suspect is when they were verbally advised the certificate was approved. Think the date included is the dated it was entered on the L Aid register.

 

I would suggest that if I am correct they had seven days in which to file the Part 8 response. Could well be worth digging

a) Asking the court if they served or who did

b ) What date is service claimed to be

 

Just my thoughts

Edited November 28, 2015 by Graham.m

[NigelMoore]

Just my thoughts

 

Useful ones too. Just off the phone yet again with Andy, trying to clarify the situation for him. He doesn't understand why, when he sent in masses of corroborating evidence, none of that appeared before the court. The answer is obviously that nothing other than a statement of representation ever WAS sent into the court. It was surprising that the judge allowed even what he did.

[Phil.]

I hope that in addition to seeking an appeal he is also considering making a formal complaint to the law society as it appears as if his legal representation may have been grossly incompetent. As Tony stated in an earlier post he would have had a better chance at a positive result if the office cleaner had dealt with his paperwork.

Edited November 30, 2015 by Phil.

[Graham.m]

 

Useful ones too. Just off the phone yet again with Andy, trying to clarify the situation for him. He doesn't understand why, when he sent in masses of corroborating evidence, none of that appeared before the court. The answer is obviously that nothing other than a statement of representation ever WAS sent into the court. It was surprising that the judge allowed even what he did.

 

Thank you

 

Just a thought about the Judge allowing Andy's witness statement. Could it have been the Judge realising a failure of the representative and getting it into the case and the transcript. Thus maybe he could well have helped the appeal, although he could not find except for CRT. Suspect Appeal Courts have greater leeway in what they hear if they have good reason to suspect problems, could be wrong though.

[Graham.m]

 

Introducing the judgment, the judge had noted:

 

“The Claimants and Defendant were given notice by the court of the hearing date for these CPR 8 proceedings on 9 September 2015. The hearing was fixed for today. The Defendant’s current solicitors gave notice of acting to the court on 16 September 2015. No acknowledgment of service pursuant to CPR rule 8.3 was filed or served. There was no suggestion of any substantial dispute of fact. The Claimant’s claim was properly formulated and served and they were, in the absence of any issue or dispute raised by the Defendant and the exercise by the court of its judicial discretion, lawfully entitled to the relief sought given the facts and their statutory duties powers in respect of the proper control of the moorings and use of the canal and waterways for which they are responsible.

 

Now I am guessing, but the Court will know. Tony D might know. As part of the service for CPR 8 proceedings is the date of the hearing included with the served papers?

 

To me it makes sense because the court does not expect an appearance by the defendant, and if the defendant replies disputing CPR 8 it all stop and goes the normal path.

 

If it is that give the service date of the 9th September, due return date of 24th.

 

Or is the one grey cell dying as well as the rest.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Now I am guessing, but the Court will know. Tony D might know. As part of the service for CPR 8 proceedings is the date of the hearing included with the served papers?

 

To me it makes sense because the court does not expect an appearance by the defendant, and if the defendant replies disputing CPR 8 it all stop and goes the normal path.

 

If it is that give the service date of the 9th September, due return date of 24th.

 

Or is the one grey cell dying as well as the rest.

 

As far as I can remember, the Hearing date was on the served papers, but to be 100% sure I would have to find mine, and they aren't readily to hand at the moment. I may be able to get them tomorrow.

My Acknowledgement of Service papers ~ http://www.scribd.com/doc/238237047/Dunkley-Part-8-Reply ~ did have the Hearing date hand written, by the Court, across the top of the first of the pages that had to be returned. The Hearing was on 4 July 2014 and I didn't get the response papers until late on 2 July because they had gone missing from amongst the Claim paperwork which had been served previously.

Edited November 28, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[NigelMoore]

As part of the service for CPR 8 proceedings is the date of the hearing included with the served papers?

 

No. The served papers cannot give a date of hearing, because that is in the hands of the court. The claimant serves the papers, and the court, upon considering them, allocates a date for hearing.

 

The Chronology of events:

 

Claim issued: 4 September

Court Notice of hearing date: 9 September

Notice of acting for Defendant: 16 September

Acknowledgement of Service: never filed

Objection to Part 8 Procedure: never filed

Defence: never filed

Evidence for defence: never filed

Statement for Defendant: 7 October

Draft Defence: informally handed in on day of hearing

 

Or is the one grey cell dying as well as the rest.

 

Hadn't realised that you had joined the timeshare with MtB, mayalld and NaughtCal.

 

It is hopefully not dying, just a tad overworked between the lot of you.

[Graham.m]

Nigel,

 

Surely the Claim has to go to the Court before it is served to be sealed and given its case number, then if CRT/Shoosmith are serving returned to them for service.

[NigelMoore]

Nigel,

 

Surely the Claim has to go to the Court before it is served to be sealed and given its case number, then if CRT/Shoosmith are serving returned to them for service.

 

You fill out the Claim Form and hand in to the court, who seal it on the spot. You then serve a copy of those sealed papers on the Defendant. That will all have gone down on September 4th.

 

Subsequently [and in this case extraordinarily swiftly], the court informs all parties of a hearing date. I suspect the swift notice by the court in this case is down to the Part 8 process.

 

Ordinarily, the court does nothing until an acknowledgement of Service/Notice that the case will be defended, has been received. They then inform all that, as it is a defended case, further filings need to be made by a certain date, following which, case management directions will follow.

[Tony Dunkley]

Nigel,

 

Surely the Claim has to go to the Court before it is served to be sealed and given its case number, then if CRT/Shoosmith are serving returned to them for service . . . .

. . . . . . . after removing inadvertently misplacing the response papers.

[Graham.m]

 

Hadn't realised that you had joined the timeshare with MtB, mayalld and NaughtCal.

 

It is hopefully not dying, just a tad overworked between the lot of you.

 

Don't know the three mentioned and have no attachments, just letting the grey cell wander over the information.

 

I also note in Andy's statement he expressed concern that the court had not been advised of his defence (revised)

 

Oh it is certainly dying :-)

 

You fill out the Claim Form and hand in to the court, who seal it on the spot. You then serve a copy of those sealed papers on the Defendant. That will all have gone down on September 4th.

 

Subsequently [and in this case extraordinarily swiftly], the court informs all parties of a hearing date. I suspect the swift notice by the court in this case is down to the Part 8 process.

 

Ordinarily, the court does nothing until an acknowledgement of Service/Notice that the case will be defended, has been received. They then inform all that, as it is a defended case, further filings need to be made by a certain date, following which, case management directions will follow.

 

That is basically what I remember from the past, except the court would give the option for them to serve.

Edited November 28, 2015 by Graham.m

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Ordinarily, the court does nothing until an acknowledgement of Service/Notice that the case will be defended, has been received. They then inform all that, as it is a defended case, further filings need to be made by a certain date, following which, case management directions will follow.

 

That would certainly be a logical process to follow in the normal course of events, but it isn't what happened with C&RT's Claim against me.

The response papers were missing from amongst the original Claim paperwork when it was served, . . . . I wonder if the same 'accidental oversight', as Shoosmiths described it, could have happened with the Claim papers served on Andy W in September ?

[Graham.m]

 

That would certainly be a logical process to follow in the normal course of events, but it isn't what happened with C&RT's Claim against me.

The response papers were missing from amongst the original Claim paperwork when it was served, . . . . I wonder if the same 'accidental oversight', as Shoosmiths described it, could have happened with the Claim papers served on Andy W in September ?

 

Maybe Andy's Judge was wiser than we imagine at the moment. Time will tell

[NigelMoore]

 

. . . I wonder if the same 'accidental oversight', as Shoosmiths described it, could have happened with the Claim papers served on Andy W in September ?

 

For all that the possibility could not be discounted, for so long as Shoosmiths knew the papers were destined to end up with CLP [and they obviously did end up with them], then the artifice would be pointless. Whether or not a response pack was included, the professionals would know what to return, even though a layman ordinarily would not.

 

The fact that a 'Notice of Representation' was filed with the court by CLP within the 14 days from service of the Claim, is indication enough that CLP could have dealt with the matter appropriately within the time, according to the knowledge any professional would have - Response Pack or no Response Pack.

 

Don't know the three mentioned and have no attachments, just letting the grey cell wander over the information.

 

Sorry, thought you might have been referring to an ‘in joke’ about single brain cells as bandied about previously in a related topic.

 

I even borrowed it myself once [on invitation].

[Graham.m]

 

For all that the possibility could not be discounted, for so long as Shoosmiths knew the papers were destined to end up with CLP [and they obviously did end up with them], then the artifice would be pointless. Whether or not a response pack was included, the professionals would know what to return, even though a layman ordinarily would not.

 

The fact that a 'Notice of Representation' was filed with the court by CLP within the 14 days from service of the Claim, is indication enough that CLP could have dealt with the matter appropriately within the time, according to the knowledge any professional would have - Response Pack or no Response Pack.

 

Sorry, thought you might have been referring to an ‘in joke’ about single brain cells as bandied about previously in a related topic.

 

I even borrowed it myself once [on invitation].

 

I agree the professionals would/should have know the CPRs Part 8 rules and been well aware that it was time sensitive.

 

Re The grey cell: No problems. For me it comes from a manager's comment in my very young days about something stupid I did and only having one grey cell in my head, lol nearly 60 years ago never forgot it

[NigelMoore]

As promised: the approved judgment from last October -

 

https://www.scribd.com/doc/291569453/Canal-River-Trust-v-Wingfield-Approved-Judgment-08-10-15

[NigelMoore]

Re The grey cell:

 

The original post I was thinking of -

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=68893&page=38#entry1392939

[Tony Dunkley]

 

As far as I can remember, the Hearing date was on the served papers, but to be 100% sure I would have to find mine, and they aren't readily to hand at the moment. I may be able to get them tomorrow.

My Acknowledgement of Service papers ~ http://www.scribd.com/doc/238237047/Dunkley-Part-8-Reply ~ did have the Hearing date hand written, by the Court, across the top of the first of the pages that had to be returned. The Hearing was on 4 July 2014 and I didn't get the response papers until late on 2 July because they had gone missing from amongst the Claim paperwork which had been served previously.

 

I've gone through all the paperwork and E-mails from the time C&RT announced their intention to start legal proceedings against me early in 2014, with particular attention on the period from 12 June 2014 to the Hearing on 4 July 2014.

There is a distinct whiff of sharp practice on the part of C&RT and Shoosmiths, including, shortly after the late service of the Claim papers only 8 clear days prior to the Hearing, an E-mailed suggestion that there would be no problem for me were I to attend the Hearing without having returned the Acknowledgement of Service Form and supporting paperwork. I quote from the E-mail :~ " . . . should you decide not to complete the Form, our client will not object to you attending at Court on 4 July and making oral representations in respect of your Defence of the Part 8 claim." ~ a tempting invitation for the gullible, if ever there was one ! . . . . I wonder if some similar, conciliatory sounding, load of guff found it's way to CLP prior to Andy W's Hearing on 8 October 2015 ?

 

There had been a considerable lapse of time between the expiry date of the S.8 and S.13 Notices and the issuing of the Claim by Shoosmiths, and, aware of their well earned reputation for 'wrong footing' Defendants, I had contacted Shoosmiths on numerous occasions as to the progress of the Claim and the likely date of issue.

 

Below is the chronology from 12 June 2014 :

 

# Thursday 12 June 2014, they notified me via E-mail that the papers had been sent to the Court, and the Court would be issuing the Claim and returning the sealed papers to them. The E-mail ended with a promise to notify me when the sealed papers had been returned from the Court.

 

# Monday 16 June 2014, enquiries at the Court Office in Nottingham, established that the Claim was issued by the Court that day and sent to Shoosmiths. Included with the sealed Claim, Acknowledgement of Service and Notes to Defendant was a sealed 'Notice of Hearing', bearing the same date and advising that a hearing of 10 minutes duration was listed for 4 July 2014.

 

# Thursday 19 June 2014, Shoosmiths advise via E-mail that the Court papers are being posted to me this day. Attached to the E-mail was a copy of the Notice of Hearing. Nothing was ever received in the Post, either prior or subsequent to the hearing.

 

# Wednesday 25 June 2014, a distinctly nervous and sheepish looking colleague of the local C&RT Enforcement Orifice served, at my boat, a very incomplete set of Court papers. The 'Acknowledgement of Service' and the 'Notes to Defendant' had all been omitted.

 

# Thursday 26 June 2014, I contacted the Court re. deficiencies in service, and to ask for copies of missing items.

 

# Friday 27 June 2014, Shoosmiths send 2 x E-mails, one at 1800 hours and one at 1830 hours. Contents of both E-mails copied below : ~

 

Dear Mr Dunkley

Further to our email to you of 19 June which attached a copy of the sealed Court papers and following service of hard copies of the Court papers on your boat on 25 June, it has come to our attention today that the blank Acknowledgment of Service Form in respect of Part 8 Claims was omitted in error from the papers previously served on you.

This is a document which you are entitled (should you so wish) to complete and file with the Court within 14 days of the service of the Claim. Please find attached a copy of the Form for your information.

As the hearing is listed for 4 July and you were formally served by hand delivery of the Court papers on 25 June, you are still within the 14 day time period for completIon.

In any event, we wish to make it clear that even should you decide not to complete the Form, our client will not object to you attending at Court on 4 July and making oral representations in respect of your Defence of the Part 8 claim.

Yours sincerely

and :

Dear Mr Dunkley

Further to my earlier email below, it has also come to my attention that the Court failed to attach the "Notes to Defendant" document to the Claim Form prior to us serving the Claim upon you. These Notes explain how to complete the Acknowledgment of Service Form so I now attach a copy of those for your information.

Yours sincerely

# Thursday 3 July 2014, taking a leaf out of Shoosmiths book, I filed the Acknowledgement of Service and my Witness Statement five minutes before the Court Office closed.

Although within the 14 day time limit for filing, this was of course far too late for forwarding to Shoosmiths, and the Court Office joined in with the fun next morning by giving the Acknowledgement of Service Form and Witness Statement to the Judge without telling Shoosmiths about it.

I got the impression that the Judge enjoyed the moment almost as much as I did, when, following Shoosmiths rather complacent opening spiel, he handed it over to them asking ~ " have you seen this ?".

Edited November 29, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[Phil.]

I've gone through all the paperwork and E-mails from the time C&RT announced their intention to start legal proceedings against me early in 2014, with particular attention on the period from 12 June 2014 to the Hearing on 4 July 2014.

There is a distinct whiff of sharp practice on the part of C&RT and Shoosmiths, including, shortly after the late service of the Claim papers only 7 clear days prior to the Hearing, an E-mailed suggestion that there would be no problem for me were I to attend the Hearing without having returned the Acknowledgement of Service Form and supporting paperwork. I quote from the E-mail :~ " . . . should you decide not to complete the Form, our client will not object to you attending at Court on 4 July and making oral representations in respect of your Defence of the Part 8 claim." ~ a tempting invitation for the gullible, if ever there was one ! . . . . I wonder if some similar, conciliatory sounding, load of guff found it's way to CLP prior to Andy W's Hearing on 8 October 2015 ?[/size]

 

There had been a considerable lapse of time between the expiry date of the S.8 and S.13 Notices and the issuing of the Claim by Shoosmiths, and, aware of their well earned reputation for 'wrong footing' Defendants, I had contacted Shoosmiths on numerous occasions as to the progress of the Claim and the likely date of issue.

 

Below is the chronology from 12 June 2014 :

 

# Thursday 12 June 2014, they notified me via E-mail that the papers had been sent to the Court, and the Court would be issuing the Claim and returning the sealed papers to them. The E-mail ended with a promise to notify me when the sealed papers had been returned from the Court.

 

# Monday 16 June 2014, enquiries at the Court Office in Nottingham, established that the Claim was issued by the Court that day and sent to Shoosmiths. Included with the sealed Claim, Acknowledgement of Service and Notes to Defendant was a sealed 'Notice of Hearing', bearing the same date and advising that a hearing of 10 minutes duration was listed for 4 July 2014.

 

# Thursday 19 June 2014, Shoosmiths advise via E-mail that the Court papers are being posted to me this day. Attached to the E-mail was a copy of the Notice of Hearing. Nothing was ever received in the Post, either prior or subsequent to the hearing.

 

# Wednesday 25 June 2014, a distinctly nervous and sheepish looking colleague of the local C&RT Enforcement Orifice served, at my boat, a very incomplete set of Court papers. The 'Acknowledgement of Service' and the 'Notes to Defendant' had all been omitted.

 

# Thursday 26 June 2014, I contacted the Court re. deficiencies in service, and to ask for copies of missing items.

 

# Friday 27 June 2014, Shoosmiths send 2 x E-mails, one at 1800 hours and one at 1830 hours. Contents of both E-mails copied below : ~

 

Dear Mr Dunkley[/size]

Further to our email to you of 19 June which attached a copy of the sealed Court papers and following service of hard copies of the Court papers on your boat on 25 June, it has come to our attention today that the blank Acknowledgment of Service Form in respect of Part 8 Claims was omitted in error from the papers previously served on you.[/size]

 

This is a document which you are entitled (should you so wish) to complete and file with the Court within 14 days of the service of the Claim. Please find attached a copy of the Form for your information.

 

As the hearing is listed for 4 July and you were formally served by hand delivery of the Court papers on 25 June, you are still within the 14 day time period for completIon.[/size]

 

In any event, we wish to make it clear that even should you decide not to complete the Form, our client will not object to you attending at Court on 4 July and making oral representations in respect of your Defence of the Part 8 claim.[/size]

 

Yours sincerely

 

and :

 

Dear Mr Dunkley[/size]

 

Further to my earlier email below, it has also come to my attention that the Court failed to attach the "Notes to Defendant" document to the Claim Form prior to us serving the Claim upon you. These Notes explain how to complete the Acknowledgment of Service Form so I now attach a copy of those for your information.

 

Yours sincerely

 

# Thursday 3 July 2014, taking a leaf out of Shoosmiths book, I filed the Acknowledgement of Service and my Witness Statement five minutes before the Court Office closed.

Although within the 14 day time limit for filing, this was of course far too late for forwarding to Shoosmiths, and the Court Office joined in with the fun next morning by giving the Acknowledgement of Service Form and Witness Statement to the Judge without telling Shoosmiths about it.

I got the impression that the Judge enjoyed the moment almost as much as I did, when, following Shoosmiths rather complacent opening spiel, he handed it over to them asking ~ " have you seen this ?".

Sounds to me like you enjoy living on the edge, 5 minutes to spare is not a lot of room for error. Having said that have you also considered making a formal complaint to the law society about Shoosmiths. Edited November 30, 2015 by Phil.

[Graham.m]

mmm So technically with service not until the 25 June and the hearing on the 4 July that only left 9 clear days not the required minimum of 14.

 

Good on you and the Judge in catching them at their own game. I suspect that you could have attend the hearing on the 4th and advised the Judge that service was not until the 25th June and he/she would have adjourned the case to another date.

 

 

snip#

 

 

# Thursday 12 June 2014, they notified me via E-mail that the papers had been sent to the Court, and the Court would be issuing the Claim and returning the sealed papers to them. The E-mail ended with a promise to notify me when the sealed papers had been returned from the Court.

 

# Monday 16 June 2014, enquiries at the Court Office in Nottingham, established that the Claim was issued by the Court that day and sent to Shoosmiths. Included with the sealed Claim, Acknowledgement of Service and Notes to Defendant was a sealed 'Notice of Hearing', bearing the same date and advising that a hearing of 10 minutes duration was listed for 4 July 2014. snip#

 

 

Many thanks Tony for digging.

 

That means that when CPR Part 8 is invoked the case is listed on the day it is sealed by the Court and a sealed copy provided for the defendant in the bundle for service. Now in my opinion that means the Andy papers were sealed on the 9 September, lets say posted that day, with Shoosmiths say two day on the 11 September. Lets say Shoosmiths played the game and they were posted to Andy on the Monday 14 September most likely arrival 15 September that makes the end of the 14 day to be the 29 September. I believe Andy's lawyers had sufficient time to serve a response and defence.

Edited November 29, 2015 by Graham.m

[NigelMoore]

I believe Andy's lawyers had sufficient time to serve a response and defence.

 

Agreed, but further to that, they had known the case was going to come up from the previous year, when the licence had been revoked again; they had had the entire year to think about, research and prepare argument [supposing they hadn’t familiarised themselves with the legislation prior to the first case].

 

The question that now arises in my own mind, is whether in that previous case they had provided an Acknowledgement of Service and/or protested the Part 8 proceedings? How much more was the success of the previous hearing entirely down to the judge despite the legal teams on either side?