header-logo header-logo

22 September 2011
Issue: 7482 / Categories: Case law , Judicial line , In Court , CPR
printer mail-detail

PCOL withdrawals

In two cases I have been concerned with, those administering the possession claim online (PCOL) system have allowed claimants to withdraw claims on line...

In two cases I have been concerned with, those administering the possession claim online (PCOL) system have allowed claimants to withdraw claims on line between service and return date and vacate the hearing without any reference to the defendant who had wanted to apply for costs. Surely this is improper and absent a notice of discontinuance there cannot be withdrawal in this way?   

The court can certainly vacate the hearing and it is open to the defendant to apply for the claim to be struck out or dismissed and for his costs. However, the better view is that notice of discontinuance does not have to be filed and served for CPR 38.6 (automatic costs on discontinuance) to kick in and that an equivalent action is sufficient. Therefore, the defendant can treat the “withdrawal” as a notice of discontinuance and seek to take advantage of r 38.6, placing the burden

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll