Last week I had an oral hearing after filing at the Court of Appeal.
The case was lost in the first instance by a business tenant of business premises. This tenant had to leave the leased property in connection with a rent arrears that had accrued for approximately 7 months.
He had asked my client - the landlord - for an extra week so that he could deliver the rented property neatly - read empty and broom clean.
During the eviction, the leased property turned out to be full of waste that had nothing to do with the tenant's business operations. This added an extra 31k in eviction costs. A typical case of deliberately causing extra damage.
An oral hearing after application is scheduled after the other party submits a bare appeal summons. No grounds of appeal have yet been made, so that the defences are not yet clear against the judgment in the first instance. Although my client had indicated that he did not need the oral hearing, we still traveled to the hearing to become familiar with the other party's defenses. These are discussed at the hearing, but not put on paper, because the purpose of the oral hearing is only to see if the case can be settled mutually.
At the hearing, the other party appeared to have tattooed a tear under his eye. Normally, according to the internet, that is someone who has committed a murder. The tenant was only selling nonsense and did not let the judge pronounce. All very indecent.
As a proposal to arrange it, he wanted to part ways with closed purses, it was proposed. Of course, my client did not agree to that. Certainly not because the damage caused was more than 30k and the total claim was more than 120k.
Of course, no arrangement is made with such a rough person. Not even if the judge tries to steer towards this. It should not become an end in itself to get a regulation through...
That certainly does not do justice in this case!
We'll send you a nice letter once per week. No spam.
