Ged Kelly Stonewalling Unissued Claim at Manchester County Court

Ged Kelly’s Responses Place Unfair Burden on Litigant

Manchester County Court staff member Ged Kelly, face scrutiny over mishandling a claim that was never legally issued. The claim advanced through multiple hearings and a trial but lacked the required Part 7 claim being issued. A basic precudural and administrative step.

Rather than addressing this administrative failing, Ged Kelly directed the litigant to submit formal applications, adding unnecessary hurdles to an already complex ordeal.

Unissued Claim Progresses Despite Procedural Failures

Theclaim moved through the system without a Part 7 claim being issued. In an email, Ged Kelly confirmed that “no Part 7 proceedings… have been issued” and noted that “the issue fee for a Part 7 Claim was never paid.”, that issue fee being £10,000.

It took the threat of an N244 application to the court by the litigant, to order Mr Kelly to provide the above confirmation.  It was only after the application was filed, did Ged Kelly repsond.

Yet Kelly still advised the litigant to submit a formal application for directions, effectively shifting responsibility onto them. This expectation increased frustrations, as the responsibility for issuing the Part 7 claim should rest with the court or claimants.

Litigant’s Calls for Accountability Met with Deflections

The litigant shared a record of judicial orders underscoring the severity of the procedural lapse. On 9 March 2023, District Judge Iyer issued an “unless order,” stating the claimants claim would be struck out if the Part 7 claim was not issued. Despite this, the case continued—even after the litigant informed Manchester County Court staff of the breach.

On 6 April 2023, His Honour Judge Sefton confirmed the claimants’ non-compliance and struck out the claim in the morning. Later that same day, however, His Honour Judge Bird erred in law and permitted the claimants to proceed without a mandatory relief application for the breached order. This inconsistency trapped the litigant in a prolonged struggle over basic procedural details.

Actions by Manchester County Court Raise Serious Concerns

Instead of addressing this error, staff, including Ged Kelly, requested formal applications from the litigant. This approach shifted the burden onto the litigant, forcing them to resolve issues caused by the court’s and the claimants catastrophic errors. The court’s insistence on applications for its own errors raises questions about its commitment to procedural integrity.

Manchester County Court Must Uphold Accountability

The court’s expectation that the litigant should correct these errors alone reveals concerning practices in its administration. Mishandling of the claim highlights flaws in the court’s processes and adherence to judicial orders.

Ged Kelly’s confirmation of the missing Part 7 claim signals a troubling breakdown in accountability.

Manchester County Court must address these issues, upholding standards of transparency and integrity essential to public trust.

Manchester Civil Justice Centre is are aware that legal action against the court administration is being considered.