Hello
A family member of mine will be going to a small claims court soon because of a RTC they were involved in.
What are happens in a small claims court do they have to tell the court what happened then the other party has to say there story?
Who decides who is guilty.
--
(iam not a mechanic)
Martin Winters
|
From my experience, both parties sit down in an informal environment (not a courtroom) and present their case to the judge. He or she will ask various questions along the way and ask for documents if needed.
The judge then makes a decision on the spot and thats the end of the matter unless either party decided to appeal.
Make sure you're honest and keep the account objective - and make sure you have any documents/photos etc you need to back up your story.
|
|
|
|
I agree with Snakey but with me the judge gave a written judgement after about a week or so. Absolutely essential to stick to the facts and don't be tempted to exagerate. If the judge suspects one party is being ecconomical with the truth then I think they will lose the case.
|
It's all nice and informal, as the other poster say, be completely honest and take as much documentation that proves your point as you can.
----------------------------------------------
Aim low, expect nothing & dont be disappointed
|
|
|
|
The whole procedure is very easy and relaxed. I sued an electricity plc for breach of contract and won. I do not have a legal background and was against a specialist solicitor from Mayfair. The judge will guide you in the correct procedures, and provided you follow his advice, being not legally advised is not a disadvantage. Do make sure you have all written and photographic evidence in triplicate - one copy for yourself, one for the judge and one for the defence - the latter 2 copies are submitted with the application. New evidence (not the whole case) can be submitted on the day, provided the judge agrees.
The judge will make his decision based upon the facts presented and the law. His ruling is immediate and binding on both parties.
It is a great feeling when you win after appearing before a judge. Sometimes things can be resolved before this either because the other party fails to respond to court documents or decides to settle the case before it gets before the judge.
I wish them best of luck.
--
Roger
A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well.
|
It is informal, but you are in a courtroom: don't be tempted to treat it less than seriously.
Unrepresented parties will get a lot of help from the judge, who will take a much more active role in investigating the matter than he would as between two represented parties (whose reps would be expected to know what they were doing in terms of procedure). Tell the truth and don't interrupt the judge (or the other person).
Make notes as you go along about what the other side says if you don't agree; then, when it's your turn, challenge what your opponent has said.
By the trial date, however, you should have got all your evidence in and served on the other side: unless it's something trivial or obvious, don't rely on the judge allowing it in if it's your fault and you should have served it sooner.
You have the benefit of a specialist judge - all being well - who is used to dealing with laymen. Be extra-courteous - and remember, you'll probably be nervous.
|
one thing to remember with small claims court.........(and most other courts in reality)........is that even if you win...........if the other side refuse to pay, you are often completely on your own
in theory the court order could have bailiffs knocking on doors for your money, but the reality is something else again
yet again, another example of the law abiding losing out
|
Westpig's is a very good point - the most important one, in fact. There's no point in winning if the other side can't pay, or you then have to spend loads more enforcing the debt.
Having said that, the court will advise you further (eg if debtor has a house, then you can apply for a charging order IIRC).
|
My wife and I had to take a car dealer to the small claims court, because we pulled out of a deal at the last moment because of a honest misunderstanding on both sides about the part-ex price of our car. The dealer refused to give us our deposit back as he had to do a couple of small superficial jobs on the car and so has had to pay for parts.
He eventually gave us a cheque, but cancelled it, so we went to the small claims court.
The judgement went our way because
1) It was an honest misunderstanding
2) The dealer would've had to spend the money any way when he sold it proper
3) He gave us a cheque for the deposit, which is a 'promise to pay' and so whether he cancelled it or not, he had 'promised to pay'.
We got back the original deposit, half a days wages as we had to have time off to attend the court, travel expenses and interest on the deposit too.
----------------------------------------------
Aim low, expect nothing & dont be disappointed
|
I have just gone through this as the (successful) defendant in an RTA and have successfully sued others on 2 other occassions in the last couple of years and I would disagree with the idea that it's an informal process.
My wife is a barrister of 20+ years experience and sits as a part time judge and she found the process of preparation absurdly complex and not at all designed for the layperson.
Be absolutely professional in your adherence to the procedures and read the paperwork again and again before you submit documents as the court makes no allowance for the fact that you are an amateur who has misconstrued something.
|
|
I think I've posted this before, but Patricia Pearl (a judge) has a highly regarded book called "Small Cliams Procedure: A Practical Guide". £16 at Amazon. Also the Consumer Action Group web site is good and howtocomplain.com can be helpful. Hope this helps.
|
Yes, my experience match Nsar. I have found it rather formal.
Smaller courts (such as Warwick) are much nicer than large city courts (such as Nottingham).
You should call the Judge Sir or Madam and answer closed questions with Yes Sir or No Sir, and only then qualify your answer if neccessary.
REMEMBER! in a civil case you only have to prove your case on the balance of probability - you need to tip the scales of justice in your favour only 51% vs. 49% to win. Unlike criminal cases where it is beyond all reasonable doubt. ie 99.9%.
|
But don't get hung up on remembering the Sir/Madam for the judge. I've never met one who would have held it against a layman who forgot.
They're much more concerned with proper respect for the court and the other side.
Ashok: what about 99.89%? j/k.
|
|
|
|
