Page 91 - Pages from 8. 2017 New 26-05-21 No Table- 3rd Half
P. 91

-AND-

                                 (DEFENDANT)

                            MR SIMON CORDELL

                             DIRECTIONS ORDER

                 88.    It was inappropriate for the Defendant’s
                 representatives to have made this application as he
                 was fully aware of the fact that our directions
                 questionnaire was dully filed at Court on 17th
                 November 2017. He was copied in to all the
                 correspondence sent to the Court. He was also
                 advised by me that the Court must have made an
                 error when it stated to have received the order on
                 20th November 2017 while clearly it received it
                 electronically on 17th November 2017.
                 I am of the view that the Defendant’s
                 representatives have taken advantage of the
                 situation as when making this application he
                 already knew of the fact that the Claimant's
                 questionnaire was filed on 17th November 2017
                 and there could be a possibility of the Court
                 reconsidering its decision of striking out the
                 Claim. I find his conduct against the spirit of the
                 Civil Procedures Rules which encourage parties to
                 cooperate, communicate and try to resolve dispute
                 out of Court. The Court order dated 02nd
                 January 2018 could have been avoided had the
                 Defendant acted with more fairness and this
                 conduct has partly triggered the necessity to make
                 this application notice which means that the
                 Claimant is now incurring more costs.
                 89.    I am also instructed that since the Court
                 made the interim injunction order on 09th August
                 2017, the Defendant’s anti-social behaviour has
                 ceased towards the neighbours and no complaints
                 have been received from them. I am therefore of
                 the view that the residents and employees of the
                 Claimant could be prejudice if the Claim and
                 interim injunction order were not reinstated.
                 90.    As a result of the above, we would like the
                 Court to set aside the orders made on 13th
                 December 2017 and 02nd December 2018. The
                 Claimant would also like the Claim and interim
                 injunction to be reinstated and an order that the
                 Defendant pays the Claimant’s costs as his
   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96