Just a short story to share some news posted by a subscriber on the Credit Hire Forum about a failure from Keogh’s yesterday (4th January 2021). Always good to start the new year on a bit of a high note!
In hearing an Application, by Keoghs, for Pre-Action Disclosure of impecuniosity doucments in Cardiff County Court yesterday (4th Januaru 2021), the Judge dismissed the Application.
Keoghs had applied for the pre action disclosure of impecuniosity documents in Cardiff, as part of their default strategy. For reasons we all probably understand, they did this in Cardiff rather than issuing the Application in a Court in the North East where any eventual case was likely to be heard. On hearing from Counsel, the District Judge agreed with the Claimant that Cardiff was the wrong Court for such an Application to be issued (CPR 23) and that there was no 'good reason' for the Application to be heard there. The Application was dismissed.
In addition, the solicitor reported that the Application was issued in the name of the insurer and C successfully argued that they were not likely to be a party to proceedings and it therefore must also fail under CPR 31.16.
With thanks to our member for sharing this intelligence and also for allowing it to be circulated more widely. A reminder that by sharing intelligence we do advance the interests of the entire industry and identify vulnerabilities in the approach of keoghs, DAC Beachcroft, Horwich Farrelly and others. Indeed, our member posted the intelligence in light of the fact that a number of other member firms and CHOs contiue to face similar Applications for PAD from Keoghs.
C instructed Helen Rutherford of Exchange Chambers in this matter and the solicitor hopes to get a copy of the judgment in due course.
On a separate but related. note, we still have not had sight of the appeal judgement in Poku v Abudin and I know many of you continue to ask for it. Rest assured that the CHO, and their solicitor, continues to chase the court.