Hi!
You know that shrinking feeling when someone says to you 'where is your completed such and such form' ? and you look on like a rabbit in headlights?!
Well, this happened to me just recently. In fact most will probably not believe it. But, I have never received a Directions Questionnaire before! Gone through the mediation process a few times, been allocated to a small claims track hearing, and attended court on 3 occassions to defend copyright. Everything except the N180 form. It has literally thrown my capabilities sideways!
Apparently the Court are supposed to send this to you but they haven't. I mean the London devision of Ipec are monumentally rubbish which would half explain, but this was so scary, and one reply I didn't have the answer for to hand.
My question therefore is this. Why if you know which part of the ipec court your case is suitable for, and you have already done a statement of truth in your Particulars of Claim, is this form necessary? I just don't get it!
Hope to get a reply from some budding IP person!
Thanks
Helen
Directions questionnaire.
Re: Directions questionnaire.
Hi Helen,
I am a little bemused by your question. I thought that the N180 form was pretty self explanatory. Yes, it may repeat a few steps which have already been included elsewhere, but don't forget that both parties must be given the opportunity to say if they want to opt for, say, the Multi-track rather than the Small Claims track, or voice their views about which of the IPEC registries is the most appropriate for them and so on. This allows the supervising judge to ensure the case is sent to the most appropriate court, and hopefully will avoid bottlenecks or delays occurring at the CMC or hearing stage.
Assuming this is about the case with the defendant who wants to counter-sue for breach data, then I would suggest they need all the hand-holding they can get during the pre-hearing phase.
I am a little bemused by your question. I thought that the N180 form was pretty self explanatory. Yes, it may repeat a few steps which have already been included elsewhere, but don't forget that both parties must be given the opportunity to say if they want to opt for, say, the Multi-track rather than the Small Claims track, or voice their views about which of the IPEC registries is the most appropriate for them and so on. This allows the supervising judge to ensure the case is sent to the most appropriate court, and hopefully will avoid bottlenecks or delays occurring at the CMC or hearing stage.
Assuming this is about the case with the defendant who wants to counter-sue for breach data, then I would suggest they need all the hand-holding they can get during the pre-hearing phase.
Advice or comment provided here is not and does not purport to be legal advice as defined by s.12 of Legal Services Act 2007
Re: Directions questionnaire.
Hi Andy
Absolutely bemusing! I am finding it hard to get my head around it as well. But don't forget, if you have never been sent one (as I see the court should) then how are you supported to know about the n180 form.
When we have raised an IP claim previously, we know it is destined for the Small claim track, because the amount of money sought is relatively small. When we have received the court direction with hearing date, it clarifies which court. Prior to this we have had the opportunity to do mediation, which we always accept. But as I say, this so weird.
Having since read up a bit on this, I see this has happened to other litigants in person. Therefore we were not alone.
Of course, if this were a counterclaim I guess one would need it to be diverted to another devision.
By all account the London devision of the ipec is completely a rule unto itself. They rarely picked up the phone, only reply to emails occasionally. Now that Manchester are handling the show, things seem to have improved. I am improving my knowledge, so hopefully this kind of curve ball won't happen again. Also, that was the last claim going through Thomas More at the Strand.
Thanks so much Andy. Much appreciate your time
.
Best
Helen
Absolutely bemusing! I am finding it hard to get my head around it as well. But don't forget, if you have never been sent one (as I see the court should) then how are you supported to know about the n180 form.
When we have raised an IP claim previously, we know it is destined for the Small claim track, because the amount of money sought is relatively small. When we have received the court direction with hearing date, it clarifies which court. Prior to this we have had the opportunity to do mediation, which we always accept. But as I say, this so weird.
Having since read up a bit on this, I see this has happened to other litigants in person. Therefore we were not alone.
Of course, if this were a counterclaim I guess one would need it to be diverted to another devision.
By all account the London devision of the ipec is completely a rule unto itself. They rarely picked up the phone, only reply to emails occasionally. Now that Manchester are handling the show, things seem to have improved. I am improving my knowledge, so hopefully this kind of curve ball won't happen again. Also, that was the last claim going through Thomas More at the Strand.
Thanks so much Andy. Much appreciate your time
.
Best
Helen