Free Traffic Legal Advice

It would do no harm for you to contact the court and verify the status of this.

Call Norwich first thing in the morning usually the best time. This is one case when telephone makes sense.

You should continue on the basis that the hearing is going ahead and the claim remains live unless and until you receive formal written confirmation that it has ended. An N279 (Notice of Discontinuance) is one way the claim ends, but it is not the only way. The claim can also end by the court striking it out, including where a directions order states that failure to pay the hearing fee by a specified deadline will result in strike-out. In practice, youshould not stop preparing simply because BW Legal go quiet or because no further letters arrive. Administrative delay is common and the absence of correspondence is not reliable evidence that the claim has been discontinued or struck out.

On the hearing fee point, an earlier payment made for a vacated hearing does usually remain attached to the same claim, and in many cases HMCTS will treat that fee as paid for the re-listed final hearing. However, it is not safe to assume it automatically “transfers” in the sense that the new hearing centre will necessarily show it as satisfied. When a hearing is vacated and the matter is re-listed at a different hearing centre, payments can sometimes sit on the court file as paid but not properly allocated to the new hearing date, or the local court record can still show the fee as outstanding until someone manually reconciles it. The practical consequence is that the only reliable approach is to verify what the court system currently shows for the hearing fee status on that claim.

The correct immediate step is therefore to contact the court to obtain explicit confirmation of the fee position, not to speculate. Telephone contact first thing in the morning is usually the most effective. If Norwich court routes civil enquiries to the National Administration Centre, then you should ask that centre to check the fee status on the claim record and confirm whether the hearing fee is recorded as paid, and if so, on what date, and whether it is treated as satisfying the fee requirement for the upcoming Norwich hearing. You should make a clear contemporaneous note of the date and time of the call, the name or identifier of the person spoken to if given, and exactly what was said the system shows. If email updates are refused, which is common, you should still ask for a note to be placed on the court file recording the enquiry and the advice given.

In short, you proceed as though trial is happening unless you receive an N279 or a court order or written confirmation that the claim has been struck out or vacated. The hearing fee question must be resolved by checking the court record because earlier payment often applies to the same claim but cannot be treated as automatically reconciled to a re-listed hearing without confirmation.

Just in terms of checking my 'onward actions', what do I need to do, and what should I expect over the course of the next three weeks?

I note that the main Direction is that "Each party must deliver to the other party and to the court office copies of all documents on which that party intends to rely at the hearing no later than fourteen days before the hearing.".

For my part I have my paginated bundle that was originally prepared and submitted for the vacated St Helens hearing, comprising:

• Witness Statement
• Copy of Brennan v PPS
• Copy of Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Mark Edward
• Annotated photographs showing locations of missing/illegible signage, taking from my video of the site
• Annotated version of NTC's site plan, showing locations of illegible/missing signage

Other than making the necessary amendments to the bundle to reflect the move to Norwich, are there any other amendments I need to make to my own bundle, before re-submitting it on or before 25th December?

(n.b. Will the existence of the Christmas holiday impact upon certain service dates?)

I assume that BWLegal will also be submitting their own revised bundle, and would guess that I may receive it a little before the deadline owing to their likely Christmas shut-down.  I take it that we're expecting it to be the same but for, perhaps, the inclusion of their supplemental evidence dated 24th June and, potentially, being amended to 'cure' the Eden Moore situation?

Is there anything else I need to be doing in the interim?

Hi b789

I've re-uploaded everything to Google Drive, which should now be visible at this address:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Pl6JWUnidWTdy-QyQpqKjj-exgYbMKn9?usp=drive_link

Everything substantive should be there, including the initial back-and-forth with BWLegal which is referred to in my defence.  The other relevant documents (NTD, NTK, Claim Form, and their N180) are in a single document bundle.

This should cover off everything that we've done so far, but please let me know if there's anything missing.

The Witness Statement dated 10/06/2025 was submitted in anticipation of the St Helens hearing, so BWLegal will already have had sight of this.

Thanks again for all your assistance so far.

The 'Save as to Costs' nature of the letter feels interesting, as it's clearly an attempt to double-down on their belief that they will win at court

I'm not sure I'd read too much into that. It is entirely normal for settlement offers to be made on a without prejudice save as to costs basis.

Thanks b789 - I shall make those amendments, and await anything else you might wish to advise.

Should I also add a copy of the Mazur judgment as an addtional item of evidence, in the same way as Brennan and Edward?