Small Claims - Representation
Discussion
To be brutally honest, she should have thought about that prior to issuing proceedings. She's decided to issue proceedings and represent herself. The clue is in the term "represent herself".
If she really needs help, google the term McKenzie friend and see if you can fit that description.
Failing that, find a direct access barrister who will represent her at Court. As it's a small claim, she'll have to foot that bill herself as it isn't recoverable even if she wins.
If she really needs help, google the term McKenzie friend and see if you can fit that description.
Failing that, find a direct access barrister who will represent her at Court. As it's a small claim, she'll have to foot that bill herself as it isn't recoverable even if she wins.
ash73 said:
In this age of equality why can't women stand up for themselves?
Maybe she is anxious or hates pressure situations? Didn’t spot the op saying she felt having a vagina meant she wanted him to help or she thought his penis would come in handy.My wife didn’t fancy being dragged to court for something very minor once so she took the fine. I wasn’t allowed to represent her, but I would have offered even if we were a couple of Jeffries.
Flumpo said:
Maybe she is anxious or hates pressure situations? Didn’t spot the op saying she felt having a vagina meant she wanted him to help or she thought his penis would come in handy.
My wife didn’t fancy being dragged to court for something very minor once so she took the fine. I wasn’t allowed to represent her, but I would have offered even if we were a couple of Jeffries.
This is a different situation though isn’t it. Yes in your case, your wife didn’t have any say in being the Defendant in the proceedings.My wife didn’t fancy being dragged to court for something very minor once so she took the fine. I wasn’t allowed to represent her, but I would have offered even if we were a couple of Jeffries.
In this case, the OP’s wife is the Claimant and is the one who instigated the Court proceedings. Prior to doing this, she should have considered whether she was willing to see it through to the final hearing when all the parties are sat face to face and she has to provide evidence to support her case as well as cross examine the other side, witnesses and face cross examination herself. I think most people expect that the other side will crumble or they’ll obtain Judgment in Default if they issue. This certainly isn’t the case.
ash73 said:
In this age of equality why can't women stand up for themselves?
I'm not sure that it has anything to do with gender. I'm pretty sure my daughter would be more composed in a court than my nephew. Having been to a small claims court in Kemp vs Pony, in 2004, I can tell you it's an intimate affair.
There was an office. A Judge, Kemp, Kemps Solicitor and me.
I won because my story made sense, I had photos and Kemp was clearly bulls
tting. The judge effectively did the job of prosecution and defence for both sides. Firmly, fairly and without any stress. He also recognised the stress of it for both of us. KungFuPanda said:
...If she really needs help, google the term McKenzie friend and see if you can fit that description...
Made me think of this recent Queen’s Bench Division case: https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/mckenzie-friend-... where an application to appoint a McKenzie friend was refused. The MF would be limited to providing ‘moral support’, including taking notes, helping with case papers and quietly giving advice on any aspect of the conduct of the case. The judge did allow those in court to use mobile phones, given the need to socially distance in court.I wouldn’t recommend this response:
‘The judgment recorded that when Steyn refused the claimant’s application to grant Ogilvy a right of audience, her behaviour changed ‘very suddenly and dramatically’. She became extremely angry, shouting loudly at the judge and throwing files forcefully down onto the bench. She then appeared to sit down under the bench so she was no longer visible to the judge.’
jimbobs said:
ash73 said:
Women always fall back on their husbands in these situations, it's pathetic. Equality is just bks.
Two misogynistic posts in one thread -well done. ks.Maybe the OP’s wife is concerned about being confronted with an aggressive t
t in court and doesn’t fancy it...Cudd Wudd said:
Made me think of this recent Queen’s Bench Division case: https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/mckenzie-friend-... where an application to appoint a McKenzie friend was refused. The MF would be limited to providing ‘moral support’, including taking notes, helping with case papers and quietly giving advice on any aspect of the conduct of the case. The judge did allow those in court to use mobile phones, given the need to socially distance in court.
I wouldn’t recommend this response:
‘The judgment recorded that when Steyn refused the claimant’s application to grant Ogilvy a right of audience, her behaviour changed ‘very suddenly and dramatically’. She became extremely angry, shouting loudly at the judge and throwing files forcefully down onto the bench. She then appeared to sit down under the bench so she was no longer visible to the judge.’
Good Lord, I read the decision linked in that article and there's a lot to unpack there. Interestingly as recently as yesterday the Claimant in that case made a plea for the judge to recuse herself from the case because of alleged bias. All in all her war with PwC has been going on for the better part of 4 years.I wouldn’t recommend this response:
‘The judgment recorded that when Steyn refused the claimant’s application to grant Ogilvy a right of audience, her behaviour changed ‘very suddenly and dramatically’. She became extremely angry, shouting loudly at the judge and throwing files forcefully down onto the bench. She then appeared to sit down under the bench so she was no longer visible to the judge.’
I do love reading the withering comments made by Judges about aspects of a case that are beyond the pale, like how the Claimant took 3 full months before attempting to file an injunction (which failed) on the afternoon before the hearing, and complained that her computer had been too slow to do it previously. The incredulity just drips from the judgement.
Regards the OP - as that linked case illustrates - a McKenzie Friend can basically assist the LIP in admin and quietly advise them, but that's it. The OP will not be permitted to act in the litigants stead simply because she doesn't feel up to it. As has been - brutally - said before, one must consider the implications for taking legal action. It is not a trivial matter and at the best of times there will be stress involved.
The best she can really hope for is that it gets settled before court, either during mediation, and if it doesn't she can always pull out before the hearing. The good news is that in small claims she won't ordinarily be on the hook for legal expenses, but a nominal costs order could be made against her if she acts in bad faith (e.g. doesn't turn up on the day, etc).
KungFuPanda said:
To be brutally honest, she should have thought about that prior to issuing proceedings. She's decided to issue proceedings and represent herself. The clue is in the term "represent herself".
To be brutally honest, did you not bother to read the OP or was it too difficult To understand?
All she needs is some reassurance. In my experience small claims are heard in the judge's chambers. You sit at a table with the defendant on the other side. The judge will ask some questions and ask for evidence to support the answers given. He will then decide who wins. Simple conversation really. There is no 'cross-examination' as such.
Durzel said:
...I do love reading the withering comments made by Judges about aspects of a case that are beyond the pale, like how the Claimant took 3 full months before attempting to file an injunction (which failed) on the afternoon before the hearing, and complained that her computer had been too slow to do it previously. The incredulity just drips from the judgement...
That is one slow PC she had... 
It is a good judgment. The judges must get to see some rather entertaining litigants (lay and otherwise
). I recall at my old firm, a client was so disgusted at the hearing outcome that he tried to set fire to the seats in the court. Certainly would have livened up that day in the county court, though I’ve yet to witness anything beyond a claimant who called the DJ a “prick” then stormed out. IANAL, but I understand that winning in Small Claims Court is one thing; actually getting paid might be a whole other problem.
The OP's partner might want to consider how likely she is to get paid even if she does win, before she subjects herself to what is obviously likely to be a stressful experience for her.
The OP's partner might want to consider how likely she is to get paid even if she does win, before she subjects herself to what is obviously likely to be a stressful experience for her.
KevinCamaroSS said:
All she needs is some reassurance. In my experience small claims are heard in the judge's chambers. You sit at a table with the defendant on the other side. The judge will ask some questions and ask for evidence to support the answers given. He will then decide who wins. Simple conversation really. There is no 'cross-examination' as such.
Same experience for me(having done more than a dozen-part of job)Defendant has to submit details as to why the invoice hasn't been paid. (financial hardship isn't usually an excuse) before hearing date. Presume defendant hasn't given any explanation why invoice has not been paid.
If straight forward goods supplied and customer not paid-likely defendant wont even turn up for hearing and you will get judgement on day of hearing against defendant.
Suggest decide at time of getting details of defense if you want to proceed.
If debt is disputed can post on hear and get advice about it.
Is it a company or an individual that is defendant and whats roughly amount of debt- detail can help in making decision on best way forward.
Other ways to resolve the matter possible but these may have been explored already and failed
Cudd Wudd said:
KungFuPanda said:
I don’t understand what your point is? What have I missed from the OP?
Contemplated proceedings rather than issued claim, perhaps?ash73 said:
In this age of equality why can't women stand up for themselves?
Women always fall back on their husbands in these situations, it's pathetic. Equality is just bks.
How would you feel if he were gay? And his husband didn't feel like dealing with a court case as he wasn't confident enough? Would that make you less cross about someone (male or female) wanting help and support?Women always fall back on their husbands in these situations, it's pathetic. Equality is just bks.
Edited by TimmyMallett on Thursday 9th July 10:16
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff