Civil claim evidence of loss
Discussion
If a party to a claim is claiming a loss, and in evidence produces an invoice that has been sent to them, which is likely genuine, however the invoicing party has been redacted, is the court likely to accept it?
At no point has the other party said who the invoice is from and they are so far unwilling to disclose it.
At no point has the other party said who the invoice is from and they are so far unwilling to disclose it.
There are limited permissible reasons for redacting documents on which a claimant relies. I would ask why they have been redacted and see what they say. Ultimately the onus is on the claimant to prove the loss; they may be able to do that by way of bank statements etc, but it sounds very odd to want to redact an invoice.
So tomorrow is trial day. The claimant has still not supplied an unredacted copy of the invoice. Nor have they produced a witness statement of any sort from themselves or any other witness. It's a small claim, so the strict rules of evidence don't apply, but I think that's taking the michael a touch.
KungFuPanda said:
Surely as long as the invoice details the Claimant as the party that has incurred the charge, that's good enough to prove they incurred that charge?
Really? An undated invoice from persons unknown, no vat number. No witness statement. No record of payment. I could knock it out on Word in 5 minutes.You’ve said the invoice is likely genuine and likely from the supplying dealer. So based on that, isn’t the Judge going to come to the same conclusion and accept the invoice for what it is?
Alternatively, have you challenged the validity of said invoice in your Defence of witness statement?
Alternatively, have you challenged the validity of said invoice in your Defence of witness statement?
I would argue that absent any compelling reason for redaction the document should not be accepted as evidence. Suppose, for example, the invoice is from a party associated with the person claiming the loss. It might be a bogus invoice. I might trade as X Plumbers and Y builders and invoice myself as X to Y.
I didn't think frustration would wash so hadn't pushed it. In the end didn't matter as it wouldn't have founted anyway.
To their credit the claimant emailed immediately and offered to pay the counter claim this week. We both agreed we had better ways of spending our time and wished each other well.
It was a phone hearing and the DDJ didn't bugger about. Lasted about an hour and a half start to finish.
To their credit the claimant emailed immediately and offered to pay the counter claim this week. We both agreed we had better ways of spending our time and wished each other well.
It was a phone hearing and the DDJ didn't bugger about. Lasted about an hour and a half start to finish.
One thing I ought to say about the experience...
Going to court sucks.
I am by personality somewhat obsessive, probably slightly on some spectrum somewhere, along with compulsive and, worst of all, bloody egotistical and stubborn. Sometimes I want to win for no other reason that I want to prove than I can (in my eyes read 'should').
Small claims court is an easy process to enter (though I was defendant here), but unless you're reasonably au fait with how it works and understand the risks, it's easy to get drawn in and let it take far more of your life than it should. Objectivity is the rarest and most expensive dish on the menu when you're your own client.
My dispute was over cancellation of a contract when the service/product wasn't delivered as agreed at the start of lockdown. Ostensibly easy, but the reality is anything but. Learning contract law, consumer statute, the civil procedure rules and relevant common law is not bloody easy without access to the materials and training and experience used by the professionals. Small claims court doesn't (without fairly awful bad behaviour by one or more of the sides) allow you to reclaim legal costs if you win. For a claim in low 4 figures that cannot be bought out or killed with fire (I mean a knock out legal reason), it's not worth the money for a solicitor or barrister to consult, attend and defend.
For the hearing I had in mind the opportunity to run through all my detailed nuances and costs arguments. In the end it was like a cross between being verbally b
h slapped by Judge Judy (not in a good way) and actually bh slapped by Big Daddy (also not in a good way). We were dragged through the hearing to avoid it becoming an OCD fest of he said she said.
Coming off the call having won didn't really feel like winning. I'd got my money back, I didn't owe anybody any money, but it wasn't a victory. I totted up what I'd spent in 'costs' based on the litigant in person £19 per hour. Gave myself 10 minutes for each email received and 20 for each one sent. 5 hours for defence and counterclaim (I know, but I'm a noob and needed to research), and an hour for letters sent. 2 hours for the witness statement, plus fixed costs, loss of earnings etc. Came to £795.
In business, I've had some clients default, sometimes for 5 figures, and I've always been pragmatic about taking them to court. It can easily cost you more than you make back if you win. Pride doesn't pay your staff and there's little or no deterrent value.
Court sucks, folks.
Going to court sucks.
I am by personality somewhat obsessive, probably slightly on some spectrum somewhere, along with compulsive and, worst of all, bloody egotistical and stubborn. Sometimes I want to win for no other reason that I want to prove than I can (in my eyes read 'should').
Small claims court is an easy process to enter (though I was defendant here), but unless you're reasonably au fait with how it works and understand the risks, it's easy to get drawn in and let it take far more of your life than it should. Objectivity is the rarest and most expensive dish on the menu when you're your own client.
My dispute was over cancellation of a contract when the service/product wasn't delivered as agreed at the start of lockdown. Ostensibly easy, but the reality is anything but. Learning contract law, consumer statute, the civil procedure rules and relevant common law is not bloody easy without access to the materials and training and experience used by the professionals. Small claims court doesn't (without fairly awful bad behaviour by one or more of the sides) allow you to reclaim legal costs if you win. For a claim in low 4 figures that cannot be bought out or killed with fire (I mean a knock out legal reason), it's not worth the money for a solicitor or barrister to consult, attend and defend.
For the hearing I had in mind the opportunity to run through all my detailed nuances and costs arguments. In the end it was like a cross between being verbally b
h slapped by Judge Judy (not in a good way) and actually bh slapped by Big Daddy (also not in a good way). We were dragged through the hearing to avoid it becoming an OCD fest of he said she said. Coming off the call having won didn't really feel like winning. I'd got my money back, I didn't owe anybody any money, but it wasn't a victory. I totted up what I'd spent in 'costs' based on the litigant in person £19 per hour. Gave myself 10 minutes for each email received and 20 for each one sent. 5 hours for defence and counterclaim (I know, but I'm a noob and needed to research), and an hour for letters sent. 2 hours for the witness statement, plus fixed costs, loss of earnings etc. Came to £795.
In business, I've had some clients default, sometimes for 5 figures, and I've always been pragmatic about taking them to court. It can easily cost you more than you make back if you win. Pride doesn't pay your staff and there's little or no deterrent value.
Court sucks, folks.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 9th December 16:09
I love it, but I get paid for it.
Terminology. The common law is that part of English law not contained in legislation. The law of contract is mainly common law but is partly statutory. Judicial decisions by higher courts make up the common law.
Common law legal systems exist in most places formerly ruled by Britain.
Terminology. The common law is that part of English law not contained in legislation. The law of contract is mainly common law but is partly statutory. Judicial decisions by higher courts make up the common law.
Common law legal systems exist in most places formerly ruled by Britain.
Breadvan72 said:
The process in the Small Claims bit of the system tends to be a bit freewheeling. Things are more regimented further up the tiers. There are few accurate depictions of court processes in tv and film dramas.
I think that's what threw me. It was much more fluid than I was expecting. There was no examination by either of us of the other (perhaps because no witness statement from claimant on one side and no desire on the part of the judge to turn it into a bun fight when she'd seen a fairly clear way through from the beginning). A friend who's now a criminal barrister who cut his teeth in small claims said in practice it's (within reason, of course) pretty much anything goes regards the rules.I only did a brief sheet to sum up costs and based the 10 mins on what were typically long winded replies. How many units would normally be expected for emails between the parties (or is that a piece of string question?). In the event it was clear the judge didn't want to be drawn into a costs argument and, for once, I respected the principle of quit whilst you're ahead.
I did manage one good 'being kicked under the table' by the judge moment when giving my reply to the claimant. Bearing in mind she was thinking frustration and I wasn't, the claimant claimed the government lock down had legally prevented them from performing. I of course jumped into "well that isn't the case" before she said "are you really sure that helps you...?".
Breadvan72 said:
I love it, but I get paid for it.
Terminology. The common law is that part of English law not contained in legislation. The law of contract is mainly common law but is partly statutory. Judicial decisions by higher courts make up the common law.
Common law legal systems exist in most places formerly ruled by Britain.
Thank you for that simple explanation, not sure why I didn't know that, it's really obvious (when you put it like that)Terminology. The common law is that part of English law not contained in legislation. The law of contract is mainly common law but is partly statutory. Judicial decisions by higher courts make up the common law.
Common law legal systems exist in most places formerly ruled by Britain.
You are welcome. The common law is in a constant state of development by increments. Not every decision of a higher court develops the law. Most just iterate the law. Cases that raise new issues develop the law.
Statute covers many things but some big things remain a matter of common law. Murder, for example, is a common law offence.
I could also mention the historical difference between law and equity. That is a bit more complicated.
Statute covers many things but some big things remain a matter of common law. Murder, for example, is a common law offence.
I could also mention the historical difference between law and equity. That is a bit more complicated.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff