Page 857 - 11. 2019 New 26-05-21 No Table

We do not accept service of documents or other process by e-mail Email us at
lawmakers@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
This message may contain privileged information and is only intended to be received by the
person to whom it is addressed.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact us as soon as possible.
Partners - Mukesh Badhan - D Shanmuganathan - Vasoulla Constantinou
From: Lorraine Cordell <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2019 4:31:40 PM
To: Ronak Ahmed
ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
Sean Shanmuganathan
sean@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk
Subject: RE: RE: Simon Cordell
Claim Number FOOED222
Dear Ronak Ahmed
May I ask on what date your office got the letter dated the 04th December 2019 from the
Claimants, was it sent via post or email?
Did your office have the letter before the court made the order or after? As we knew nothing
about this letter until the 11th December 2019, when Sean made a call to me, and sent the
court order via my email which he got in the office on the 11th December 2019 from the
court.
You state in your reply email below you confirm receipt of the letter dated 4th December
2019 from the Claimants but have not confirmed what date you received it.
It does seem it was delivered to the court very fast; the letter is dated the 04th December
2019, the court got the letter on the 05th December 2019, and the court made there ruling on
the 06th December 2019.
I await your reply.
Regards
Lorraine Cordell
565,
From: Ronak Ahmed [mailto:ronak@tyrerroxburgh.co.uk]
Sent: 18 December 2019 15:24
To: Jill Bayley; Lorraine Cordell; Sean Shanmuganathan
Cc: Kulwinder Johal
Subject: RE: RE: Simon Cordell Claim Number FOOED222 Good afternoon
It is correct to say that we no longer are on record as acting for the Defendant as Legal Aid
has been terminated. However, we can confirm receipt of the letter dated 4 December 2019
from the Claimants to the Court requesting the December hearing be vacated. It does appear
that the most recent sealed court order was incorrect when it referred to a "consent order”
when it should have referred to the draft order that was attached. No such consent order was
agreed given the specific and direct instructions from the Defendant, Mr Cordell. It appears
that the court made an order in accordance with the draft order provided by the claimant.
It is also important to note that the Claim is not struck out and the Claimant can apply for it to
be reinstated. Therefore the Claim is live but with no hearing date listed so if there are any
further allegations then the case is likely to be restored.
If Mr Cordell is unhappy about the Court making any such order, he can apply using Form
N244 to set it aside.
I am not proposing to engage in further debate on this matter given we are not getting paid for
our continued involvement.
Kind regards