1. served their WS late;
   
2. served it after seeing yours;
   
3. used it to “fully particularise” a case that was not properly pleaded;
   
4. relied on a template WS with wrong hearing details;
   
5. claimed not to have received the Defence despite the claim proceeding as defended;
   
6. then paid the hearing fee late, despite the order saying the claim would be struck out without further order.
   

Quote:IN THE COUNTY COURT AT PETERBOROUGH

Claim No: M8GF4T40

HORIZON PARKING LIMITED
Claimant

v

JACK COLEMAN
Defendant

DEFENDANT’S FURTHER WRITTEN SUBMISSION
Trial fee, relief from sanction, late evidence and procedural fairness

1. I file this further short submission because the Court has now confirmed that the Claimant paid the hearing fee on 25 June 2026, despite paragraph 3 of the Notice of Allocation requiring payment by 4pm on 19 June 2026.

2. Paragraph 3 of the Notice of Allocation stated in clear terms that, unless the Claimant paid the trial fee by 4pm on 19 June 2026, the claim would be struck out with effect from 19 June 2026 without further order. It also stated that, unless the Court ordered otherwise, the Claimant would be liable for the costs I had incurred.

3. The Claimant did not comply with that order. The fee was paid six days late. By the express wording of the order, the sanction had already taken effect on 19 June 2026.

4. I have seen no application by the Claimant for relief from sanction, no evidence explaining the default, and no order granting relief. A late payment made after the sanction has taken effect cannot, by itself, retrospectively revive a claim that the Court’s own order stated was struck out without further order.

5. I respectfully ask the Court to determine this as a preliminary issue. My position is that the claim was struck out automatically on 19 June 2026 and should not proceed unless the Claimant has properly applied for and obtained relief from sanction.

6. This is not a minor administrative issue. The Claimant is a professionally represented serial litigant. Gladstones Solicitors are experienced in bulk private parking litigation. They knew, or should have known, the effect of the Notice of Allocation and the consequences of failing to pay the hearing fee on time.

7. The procedural history is also relevant. The Claimant has already served its witness statement and evidence late, after I had served my own witness statement. I objected to that late evidence. I understand that the District Judge has been asked to review that issue.

8. The Claimant’s late witness statement also sought to introduce the factual case and evidence that had not been properly pleaded in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant’s own statement asserted that the case was “now fully particularised” in the witness statement. That is precisely the difficulty: a witness statement is not a pleading and should not be used, still less late, to repair defective Particulars of Claim.

9. The Claimant has therefore failed to comply with more than one procedural requirement. It served witness evidence late, then paid the hearing fee late, and now appears to be allowed to continue without any application for relief from sanction having been served on me.

10. I am a litigant in person. I complied with the Court’s directions. I served my witness statement on time. I served my CPR 27.9 notice and written submissions because I am unable to attend the hearing due to an ongoing family matter. I have done what the Court required of me.

11. If the Claimant is permitted to continue despite failing to comply with a clear order that expressly stated the claim would be struck out without further order, that would place the parties on an unequal footing and would cause serious prejudice to me as the compliant party.

12. The prejudice is greater because I cannot attend the hearing in person. If the Court allows the Claimant’s late fee payment and late evidence to stand without a proper relief from sanction application, I will not be present to answer any oral submissions made by the Claimant or its advocate. That would give the professionally represented defaulting party a procedural advantage over the litigant in person who complied with the order.

13. The overriding objective requires the Court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost. That includes ensuring the parties are on an equal footing, saving expense, dealing with the case fairly, and enforcing compliance with rules, practice directions and orders.

14. I respectfully submit that the overriding objective is not served by allowing a professionally represented Claimant to ignore a clear unless-style order, pay the fee late, serve evidence late, and proceed as if compliance with Court directions is optional.

15. I therefore respectfully ask the Court to confirm that the claim was struck out with effect from 19 June 2026 pursuant to paragraph 3 of the Notice of Allocation.

16. I also ask the Court to consider my costs schedule pursuant to the costs provision in paragraph 3 of the Notice of Allocation.

17. If, contrary to my submission, the Court is minded to allow the Claimant to continue, I respectfully request that the Court expressly records:

   a. whether relief from sanction has been granted;

   b. whether any application for relief was made;

   c. what evidence was relied upon in support of relief;

   d. why relief was granted despite the clear wording of paragraph 3 of the Notice of Allocation;

   e. how the prejudice to me as a non-attending litigant in person has been addressed; and

   f. whether the Claimant is permitted to rely on its late witness statement and exhibits.

18. I make that request because, if the Claimant is permitted to proceed without a proper relief from sanction application and without reasons addressing the matters above, I will need to consider whether there has been a serious procedural irregularity or error of law requiring an application for permission to appeal.

19. For the avoidance of doubt, my CPR 27.9 notice should not be treated as consent to the Claimant’s late fee payment, late witness statement, late exhibits, or any attempt to proceed without relief from sanction.

20. I rely on my Defence, witness statement, previous objection to the Claimant’s late evidence, CPR 27.9 notice, written submissions, and costs schedule.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this further written submission are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed: Jack Coleman

Dated: 9 July 2026