MoJ Caseman system and claim B4PP8642

Indigo made this Freedom of Information request to Ministry of Justice

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

Waiting for an internal review by Ministry of Justice of their handling of this request.

Dear Sir/Madam

Claim: B4PP8642 started in the County Court on 15 May 2015
CASEMAN SYSTEM (computerised court record) of civil proceedings in the County Court)
Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 and 8
Freedom of Information Act 2000

This request is specifically addressed the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) Technology directorate and to the Information Asset Owner (IAO) holding the data relating to civil court proceedings B4PP8642 and is in four parts:

Part 1.
DEFENCE & COUNTER CLAIM
Please confirm that Section 2 of the Caseman database for the claim B4PP8642 records

(a) the Defendant's Defence and Counter Claim (including a 50-page sworn Affidavit) was filed (hand-delivered to the court) and served on 27 May 2015 but

(b) not sent (sealed/issued by the court) at any time between then and 26 October 2015.

Please confirm that Section 3 of the Caseman database for this claim records the payment by the Defendant/Part 20 Claimant of the relevant court fee for a defence and counter claim, being £280.00 by personal cheque dated 27 May 2015, numbered 300093 and drawn on the Nationwide Building Society.

Please confirm that there is no record at all in Section 2 of the Caseman database of a directions questionnaire ever being sent, pursuant to CPR 26.3 [1B] , to the Claimant or the Defendant/Part 20 Claimant at any time between 27 May 2015 and 26 October 2015.

Part 2.
STAY APPLICATION MADE BY DEFENDANT/PART 20 CLAIMANT PURSUANT TO CPR 11A.1

Please confirm that Section 2 of the Caseman database for this claim records

(a) the Defendant/Part 20 Claimant's Stay application filed (delivered to the court by hand) and served 26 March 2017 but

(b) that it was not sent (sealed/issued by the court) at any time between then and today 18 September 2017.

Please confirm that Section 3 of the Caseman database records the payment by the Defendant/Part 20 Claimant of the relevant court fee for this Stay application, being £255.00 by personal cheque dated 26 March 2017, numbered 300116 and drawn on the Nationwide Building Society.

Part 3.
COUNTY COURT AT WOOLWICH
Please confirm that all the data contained in the Caseman computerised court record for the County Court case claim no. B4PP8642 was directly transferred to the MoJ by the administration of the County Court at Woolwich - having recorded it on to Caseman system - and it is now controlled by the MoJ Technology directorate.

Part 4.
INFORMATION ASSET OWNER (IAO)
Please confirm that all the recorded information relevant to the County Court case claim no. B4PP8642 is in possession of the Information Asset Owner (IAO) as a member of the MoJ Operational Directorate - I understand from the MoJ's own Information Management Assessment report (published 2016) that IAOs are usually at director or deputy-director level - and as part of all the data held, relating to all civil court proceedings, under the direct control of the Ministry of Justice.

Thank you.

Yours faithfully
Rachel Mawhood

Dear Ministry of Justice,

Claim: B4PP8642 started in the County Court on 15 May 2015
CASEMAN SYSTEM (computerised court record) of civil proceedings in the County Court)
Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 6 and 8
Freedom of Information Act 2000

I am writing further to my FOI request made 18 September 2017, to which I have had no response at all from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). The MoJ is required by law to respond.

The other thing I should like to mention is that neither the MoJ nor HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) is exempt from its ordinary obligations under the law of contract in England and Wales. In taking the Defendant's money (the court fees), you - the MoJ and HMCTS - took on also the legally binding obligation to perform your side of the contract (which includes complying with the Jackson-reformed Civil Procedure Rules). You do not have any discretion to fulfil the "exchange agreement" only with corporate Claimants and not with unrepresented Defendants. The court fees paid by Claimant and Defendant are the same; there is no special cheap, "lottery" (lottery=MoJ/HMCTS might peform their side of the contract or they might not) rate, advertised as the lottery rate, for unrepresented Defendants.

Please could you (a) fulfil my perfectly reasonable FOI request made 18 September 2017 (I know that you have the information I have asked for) and (b) conduct an internal review of why the MoJ has so far ignored my FOI request and completely failed to comply with its legal obligations to me in the matter of this FOI request.

Yours faithfully,

Rachel Mawhood