Page 117 - 9. 1st half 2018 New 26-05-21 No Table

it filed its questionnaire on time. As such the
Claim should have never been struck out and the
Court is asked respectfully, to reinstate the Claim
and the injunction order.
61. The Claimant’s legal department
contacted the police on 05th January 2018 and
enquired as to the reasons why no arrests were
made to the Defendant on 11th November 2017
while a civil injunction was in place. The police
officer looked at the file notes and explained that
at the time the incident was reported by Mr
Mathiyalagan, they were not aware of the
injunction although it was served to a different
department. The Defendant also denied the
incident and Mr Mathiyalagan could not prove
that the incident took place. The police have now
referred this incident to an investigating officer
and created a crime reference number 5200 37618.
62. The Claimant also advised the police of
the incidents dated 02nd and 3rd January 2018
but the police confirmed that they could not take
actions as at the time of the incidents the civil
injunction was discharged by the Court. The
police advised that had the injunction been in
place, the Defendant

14,
13th December 2017
13th December 2017
09th August 2017.
02nd and 3rd January 2018

CLAIM NUMBER: D02EDO73

IN THE EDMONTON COUNTY COURT

BETWEEN:

{CLAIMANT}

THE MAYOR AND BURGESSES OF THE
LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD

-AND-

(DEFENDANT)

MR SIMON CORDELL

DIRECTIONS ORDER