EWJ 60 April 2025 web - Journal - Page 96
Similarly, a claimant may also fail to commence
proceedings in the right name. For example, if a defendant was engaged by a company, the claimant
should be the company and not say a director. Also,
consideration should be given to whether the individual representing the company has authority from the
company to make the claim. This is especially important to check if the company is acting in person.
Parties can become easily entrenched in correspondence when there is often greater (and surprising)
progress to be made through WP discussions between lawyers by telephone. As unfashionable as this
might have become, it is frequently a good opportunity to learn more about an opponent, whether
through candid or inadvertent comment about
expectations, which might assist in identifying an
opportunity to resolve a claim early.
Other procedural traps worth checking are whether
the claimant served proceedings within the 4-month
validity period of the claim form, including Particulars of Claim? Also whether the claimant has served
the proceedings on the correct party? Solicitors may
have been instructed to accept service instead and the
Claimant may not have complied with any limitations
expressed on service by any particular method which
might make service defective?
Constant review of the quantum of a case is also
increasingly important to ensure the strategy to conclusion remains appropriate. Given the introduction
of the Fixed Recoverable Costs regime for claims
under £100,000, the same claim with pre-action damages alleged at over £100,000, may be dealt with very
differently to a litigated claim for damages limited to
less than that sum.
In the current, uncertain economic climate, it is also
important to look out for procedural errors if any of
the parties are insolvent e.g. to check what limitation period applies and whether a claimant has obtained any necessary permission prior to
commencing proceedings (s.130 Insolvency Act
1986) or whether it needs to restore a company to
the register first and remains in time to do so (6 years
from date of dissolution).
Finally, ADR remains a key tool to consider throughout the lifetime of a claim. Just because mediation may
have been unattractive in the pre-action stage, does
not mean it remains unsuitable shortly after proceedings are issued or after certain stages of the litigation
have been completed. Picking the right moment to
agree a stay for mediation could provide a strategically
sound exit and save considerable costs.
Authors:
Philip Evans - Partner
Finally, once in proceedings, there are various strategies that can be considered and deployed effectively
as a part of a litigation toolkit at relatively early stages:
Kitty Cheung - Associate
Global Law Firm | Clyde & Co : Clyde & Co
https://www.clydeco.com/en
When defending claims by company claimants,
actively review company accounts and keep under
consideration whether security for costs should be
sought. If a claimant is non-trading, a shell company
or has poor financial statements - possibly delayed or
subject to extended accounting periods - enquiries
should be raised as soon as possible to ascertain the
latest financial position and how the Claimant
proposes to satisfy any adverse costs order.
Mr Shaun Moss
Expert evidence specifically to Housing Disrepair, Housing Conditions,
and Fire Safety and the enforcement of Tall Buildings. Providing expert
evidence in Civil Litigation, specifically related to Housing Disrepair and
Housing Condition disputes. Expertise covers the Landlord & Tenant
Act 1985 Sections 9a, 9b, 10, and 11 (LTA 1985 S9a, S9b, S10 & S11),
the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, and the Health and
Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
In appropriate cases, early consideration should be
given to applications to strike out/ for summary
judgment to avoid the costs of a defence and before
irrecoverable costs increase. Alternatively, with a
defence, policyholders should consider serving
probing Part 18 requests to address any vague or
uncertain claims.
Shaun Moss MCIEH is a member of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health
and the Expert Witness Institute. He is Managing Director of Surrey Property
Licensing. Surrey Property Licensing provide high quality, expert advice and support
on any issues you may have surrounding PRS regulation.
He has over 19 years experience working for local authorities, including over 10 years
in private sector housing and enforcement.
Early Part 36 offers should also be made in appropriate cases to put a claimant under early costs pressure, before substantive costs are incurred in the claim
e.g. in dealing with disclosure and witness and/or expert evidence. Often making early offers is not felt tactically prudent as it may indicate to a claimant that
settlement is preferred because a defence is weak.
However, in cases where liability is likely to attach and
the question is the extent of the loss to which a
claimant might be entitled, a well-pitched, early Part
36 offer can put claimants at significant costs risk. In
particular, an exposure to all of the defendant’s costs
since expiry of an offer, plus their own costs over that
same period, which combined could seriously erode
any damages offered. Policyholders should therefore
ensure that offers are well timed to be made at least 21
days before the next step in litigation and preferably
some time well before that to minimise the costs a
claimant incurs in the meantime.
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
His experience includes;
G Enforcement Actions
G Housing Disrepair or Housing Conditions
G HMO Compliance Inspections
G HHSRS Assessments
G Fire Risk Assessments
G Enforcement Action
Shaun has undertaken and achieved the Cardiff University Bond Solon (CUBS) Expert
Witness Civil Certificate and on the National Register of University Certificated Expert
Witnesses as well being members of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health
(MCIEH) and the Expert Witness Institute (EWI).
Shaun has gained a reputation for developing positive working relationships with local
authorities, landlords, letting agents, housing associations, developers, tenants and
other organisations including Citizens Advice and Trading Standards.
Contact: Surrey Property Licensing
01483 608 975
teams@surreypropertylicensing.co.uk
Web: www.surreypropertylicensing.co.uk/expert-witness
Address: 5 Brayford Square, London, E1 0SG
Tel:
Email:
94
APRIL 2025
