“There was no evidence at all served by Gosvenor in response to these witness statements. Three witness statements had been served on behalf of the defendant setting out serious allegations against the claimant. THE JUDGE’S OBSERVATIONS ON THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE FROM THE CLAIMANT AT THE INITIAL HEARING A stay of execution with the payment of the sum ordered by the ajudicator into court pending resolution of the proceedings.If the court was not willing to do that, the grant of permission to appeal.That the court should recall and reconsider its draft document.THE CLAIMANT’S RESPONSEĪfter receipt of the judgment the claimant lodged a document that sought. The judgment, in draft, was sent out to all the parties. In a reserved judgment the judge held that the claimant was entitled to judgment, however there would be a stay pending resolution of the issues put forward by the defendant. The claimant did not put in any evidence in response to the defendant’s evidence of fraud. The defendant opposed it on the grounds that the claimant had been fraudulent. The claimant sought summary judgement for the amount following an adjudication.
If a matter could have been raised at the first hearing, then it should be.” THE CASE “ The distribution of a draft jud gment under CPR Part 40 shou ld not be seen (as it seems to be, by many legal advisers currently) simply as an open invitation to embark upon an additional round of the litigation, remedying lacunae in their own ev idence and raising further arguments. In Gosvenor London Ltd v Aygun Aluminium UK Ltd EWHC 227 (TCC) Mr Justice Fraser made it clear that draft judgments were not to be taken as an invitation to the parties to embark on a second round of submissions.
0 kommentar(er)
