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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
back-to-top-scroll