Page 151 - 9. 1st half 2018 New 26-05-21 No Table

-AND-

(DEFENDANT)

MR SIMON CORDELL

DIRECTIONS ORDER

13.lt 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.
14.1 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.
15. 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
conduct has led to the necessity to make the
present application.