In response to your two questions...
1. Shouldn't the judge at least have given reasons for rejecting both the strike out and amended PoC requests?
Yes, ideally — but in practice, not necessarily at this stage.
This was an allocation order, not a hearing or formal judgment. While the defence included a request for strike-out or an order for further particulars, the judge was not obliged to rule on that at the allocation stage. Many District Judges will simply allocate to track and defer any substantive issues to the final hearing.
As the draft order was attached as part of the defence but no N244 application was submitted with a fee (and the matter was not listed for a hearing), the court may treat it as a request, not a formal application requiring reasons. This omission (i.e. not filing an N244 for directions or strike-out) may be why no explicit decision or reason is provided.
2. Does paragraph 4) of the N157 mean the defendant should have answered DCBL’s calls? Could ignoring them prejudice the case?
No, ignoring calls from DCBL will not prejudice the defence at trial.
Paragraph 4 of the N157 states:
“The parties are encouraged to contact each other with a view to trying to settle the case or narrow the issues.”
This is a general encouragement, not a compulsory direction, and it applies to both sides. The defendant is not obliged to negotiate with DCB Legal or respond to unsolicited calls or emails, particularly if those calls are vague, coercive, or unclear about their purpose. The court cannot and does not penalise a party for failing to engage with a debt collector's phone calls.
However, if this were a party-to-party discussion or a properly made Part 36 offer or Calderbank settlement letter, the court might consider unreasonable refusal to engage in settlement discussions when deciding costs after judgment. But that doesn’t apply here.
In summary:
• Not answering DCB Legal’s phone calls cannot prejudice the defence.
• The paragraph encourages negotiation between parties, not between a defendant and a third-party agent using vague or harassing tactics.
I am still very confident that DCB Legal will discontinue before the trial fee has to be paid. That deadline will come in a further order with the hearing date.
