Part 8 Claim: Can It Be Heard On The Papers/Without Claimant's presence?

Hi - tough times in the legal profession - no doubt about that.

I may not be able to get back to you on this for 48 hours.

Hope that is OK.

Cheers, Ian, that'd be great.

If the defendant acknowleges service and files evidence in reply then almost certainly the court will give directions as to the disposal of the claim.

This may involve a hearing date at which the claim is heard or further case management directions given.

Personally I would always attend any hearings.

I agree that a judge has wide powers but non -attendance by a claimant always gives the judge the excuse simply to strike out.

I would not risk it but as you say this might be a case which is so obvious that a letter to the court seeking to be excused on the grounds of ill-health might just do the trick. You would need to produce a medical report.

You will have to play it by ear and see how matters develop.

You can seek further advice here.

The part 8 procedure is appropriate for undisputed claims and is more often used to ratify an agreement reached before proceedings are commenced so as to bind the parties to its terms. It short circuits the usual process because there is no arguement. This is distinct from a watertight claim ,which might be defended ,where procedings should be issued in the usual way.

Hi Richard.

Thanks for your comments. I'd just like to say that I first came across the Part 8 procedure when looking into housing law, and found that a judge could be asked under this part to make a decision on homelessness when a Local authority refused to do so.

Then I thought that a Part 8 claim would be an appropriate method to gain satisfaction under similar circumstances to the one above, and it worked. I think the judge was very fair about the whole thing - to both parties - and was convinced that there was actually no legal or factual argument in favour of the Defendant's position. The Defendant, of course, did state reasons why the claim couldn't be heard by way of Part 8, but the arguments for were obviously pretty compelling.

As in that instance, the argument in the intended claim would be the same - that a Government Minister made (by proxy) a decision which wasn't consistent with what the law requires: as was said in answer to the previous (and same) Defendant's objection to proceeding under Part 8, there is no argument about the facts, which lie in the actions of the Defendant and what the law says about those actions. The actions of the Claimant would have no relevance.

I wish I had the legal training that some on this forum have had, and then I'd know what I was doing, but I like to have a go if I can, and sometimes have to because nobody else is able or willing to. I must say that I am very grateful to the members of this, and other law forums, for their valuable advice and assistance

I've found that the Civil Court system is reasonably fair, and so am always ready to recommend a threat of court action followed by a claim. I like the guaranteed outcome, which you don't always get if you pursue a complaint via the so-called 'watchdogs'.

I don't know why I favour the Part 8 procedure so much, but I think it's the simplicity which it brings to a claim and the fact that in threatening it it might appear that you know what you're doing, and would be a force to be reckoned with - you get kudos simply for putting in the words, as you would for any Letter Before Action which identifies the law involved.

Cheers.

It sounds as though you have a pretty reasonable grasp of things....best of luck...please let us know the outcome.

A reasonably amicable solution is always the best even if sometimes it involves some compromise. But negotiating from a position of apparent strength has a lot to be said for it.