Page 47 - Pages from 8. 2017 New 26-05-21 No Table 1st Half

(DEFENDANT)

MR SIMON CORDELL

DIRECTIONS ORDER

13. 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.
14. 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.
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.