To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
7 thoughts on “Electronic copy of Points of Dispute”
I agree that it is sloppy work but you must agree that supplying a copy of the PODs benefits all parties?
How did you/will you respond?
I had a similar demand from a Defendant, whom is the RP in this case, and obviously completely unfamiliar with recovery of costs process. They have threatened an application. I have asked for the authority , rule or PD they rely on. Yes, its disproportionate not to provide the copy they ask for, but to have it demanded and threats made – bring it on !
A well known firm recently insisted that they do not accept service via fax or email. They then go to state that notwithstanding the above they require an electronic copy of our Points of Dispute. The cheek!
I can only think that they wish to catch some people out and benefit from the new draconian rules which would make it extremely difficult to set aside a DCC.
In this modern day and age there is simply no good reason for a firm to take such a ridiculous stance on service of documents, particularly a firm of this size.
The postal service is a joke these days. Fax and email are much more reliable.
Anon
Service being effective is far removed from seeking an electronic copy to prepare a consolidated document in Reply. The issues are different
Also, if they openly state that how is it going to catch you out?
Why not contact them prior to serving PODs. that tends to move any matter forward far quicker than PODs served by email at 17.59 (ie out of time) on the last day knowing full well that a DCC cant be secured as the PODs are in – albeit late.
Oh and yes I do do that – not to catch anyone out (I spell my position out) but rather to try and get dialogue open in the hope that someone may actually contact me to discuss the matter before sending me standardised PODs at the last (or later – see previous post) minute
Courts are going to be thoroughly clogged up with litigants in person in the future. The LiP’s will be ignorant of all the rules and will be struggling even to comply with express orders of the court. Hearings will take much longer and it will take two or more directions hearings to accomplish what one short one would have where lawyers were instructed.
Professional court users have a duty to free up as much court time as they properly can. Arcane point scoring over the wording of rules or their continued existence would take up valuable court time to no constructive purpose whatsoever.
Good ways of annoying judges? Technical arguments at the expense of commonsense is one. Another is inflicting two separate documents on a judge at a Detailed Assessment Hearing. Regardless of the exact rules which apply, just send them an electronic document!