4 Sept 2019
The appeal notice was improperly filed to this court instead of following the statutory and rules procedure requiring an application to the hearing officer for permission (s63(1B) and Order 58); this court therefore had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and the appeal notice is revoked with costs payable by the second defendant.
18 May 2007
The Plaintiff's unambiguous admission to police that he was responsible for repair and maintenance, reinforced by inconsistent and unreliable retractions and supported by the commercial and contractual analysis of the hire-purchase arrangement, establishes that the Plaintiff owed the duty to keep HM247 in good repair; accordingly the Plaintiff's claim is dismissed and the 1st Defendant succeeds on his counterclaim for repair costs.
The plaintiffs' particulars did not base their claim on clause 13(A)'s formula for agreed damages; because the pleaded claim did not assert entitlement to the clause 13(A) agreed sum, Order 84 leave was not required. Separately, an agreed sum that requires investigation can nevertheless constitute liquidated damages and be subject to scrutiny under Order 84 to determine whether it is a penalty.