Neither party should be ambushing the other with fresh evidence, and most judges would take a dim view of any attempts to do the same. You could if you wish contact BW Legal and point out that you have not received their bundle. Then at the hearing point out that you either haven't received it, or have received it late (if they do send it), putting you at a disadvantage. You can point this out alongside some of the other issues (such as the Mazur point and their late submission of a supplementary WS) as evidence of their ongoing poor conduct in the handling of the case - all of this is particularly important if you win and are discussing costs.
At risk of sounding vague, much depends on the view of the judge on the day, County Court can be unpredictable.
I think one of the key facts in your case is that you have a meritorious defence point, namely that the claimant hasn't proved that a contract was formed in the first place. Even if you leave aside all the (entirely valid) technical points, there can be no money owed if no contract was formed. I'd be keen to ensure that this point does not get lost amidst any protracted debates about any technicalities (after all, as noted, most judges want an easy life).
Thanks DWMB2, I appreciate the help here.
I emailed BW Legal, who responded with the Trial Bundle and a claim that this was sent to me on 29/12/2025. I've asked them to forward to me the email they allege to have sent, so that I can see if they've mis-spelled my email address or suchlike.
I've immediately noted that the Trial Bundle they have prepared uses my pre-Mazur St Helens witness statement, and not the current one which includes a discussion of the Eden Moore issue. I shall raise this at the outset tomorrow, to ensure that the Judge relies upon my up-to-date Witness Statement, unless you think that this needs anything else doing here and now.
The comment on the ordering and prominence of the points is appreciated as well. By my understanding my hierarchy tomorrow should be:
1) Eden Moore's witness statements are hearsay. She is not the claimant and has no detailed knowledge of the site or matter, and is not present for cross-examination. As such respectfully request that little or no weight should be given to her evidence.
2) No proof of contract formed. BW Legal unable to prove the existence of a suitable consideration period, alongside missing/illegible entry signs to the car park.
3) Even if a contract
was formed, the NTD and NTK do not comply with Schedule 4 PoFA 2012 in that they state a single point in time for the alleged contravention, rather than a period of parking. This prevents Keeper Liability and, therefore, I cannot be held liable as keeper, have no obligation to name the driver, and have not done so. Persuasive precedent being
Brennan.
4) Wholly inappropriate to make the assumption that Keeper was Driver, regardless of circumstances. See
Edward.
5) Notwithstanding the above, poor conduct by BW Legal throughout, including but not limited to:
- Failure to engage with questions following Notice of Claim
- Woefully inadequate Particulars of Claim
- Conduct of litigation by paralegal (See Mazur)
- Late submission of supplementary Witness Statement following original St Helens deadline for service
- Failure to serve me with a copy of the Trial Bundle by the stated deadline, or at all, depending on response to my email this afternoon
Thanks again!
Update - I also notice that the annotations from the plan on the final page of my WS are missing from the Trial Bundle, which merely contains an un-amended copy of the plan.
Show Posts