Question Author
Thanks for the answers. Yes, "two wrongs don't make a right" was exactly the phrase I had in mind. I will go ahead with Plan A (to send them the copy documents early next week) and no-one can accuse me of being the one who has flouted the rules. I have already looked into their grounds for striking my Claim and I agree with their case.
I am suing a motor trader. My Claim was filed against Fred Bloggs trading as Bloggs Motors in February. In March, he acknowledged service and elected to dispute the Claim. He signed his defence statement in the "individual" box (rather than representing a company). In a subsequent communication, his solicitor mentioned that his client was "a sole trader" and, when the Allocation Hearing was held (multi-track) and the Defence submitted Draft Directions, the Defendant was still in the name of the trader. However, earlier this month, an Amended Defence arrived with a covering letter saying that I was suing the wrong party: the contract had been with the trader's registered company. On these grounds, the Defence incorporated the right to strike out my Claim in the Amended Defence. His solicitor said I must drop my Claim against his client and start again with a new Claim against the company. Rather than start from scratch, I applied to substitute the company as the liable entity under CPR Rule 19. I understand that there will have to be a hearing on this unless the Defendant waives this. It is against this background that the disclosure formalities have been playing out.... Thanks again for your interest.