Pete Gardner

Pete Gardner
Associate - Defended Commercial Recoveries Manager
Office:
  • Banbury
Phone:
01295 204038
LinkedIn:
LinkedIn
Specialisms:
  • Debt Recovery
  • Pete left University with dreams of being a media star and pursued this career for approximately two years at various radio stations in the South of England.
  • He joined Spratt Endicott in March 2004
  • Pete qualified as a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives in June 2010
  • Pete was promoted to the level of Associate in May 2015

Work Highlights:

  • Pete specialises in Debt Recovery matters that are subject to Court Action. This can involve matters on the Small Claims Track and the Fast Track as a Claimant or Defendant.
  • He is also adept at various Applications including those to set aside Judgment, Summary Judgment, Charging Orders, Orders for Sale, and matters involving insolvency and bankruptcy.
  • Pete is experienced at attending Court in relation to most of the above.
  • Many of Pete’s key clients are leading financial institutions and insolvency practitioners
  • Pete has obtained Judgments on an extremely large number of cases, particularly those where the Client had all but given up hope of recovery.
  • Completing ILEX qualification.

Professional memberships, publications and interests:

  • Watching and playing all kinds of sport but mainly football.
  • Pete plays 5 a side football weekly and is currently Player/Manager of the local hospital team.
  • Pete also has the general misfortune of following Oxford United around the country on a weekly basis.

 

Case Studies

  • Fast Track Victory With Full Costs Recovery
    Pete’s Client was a sole trader taking on haulage contracts.  Pete’s Client had been sub-contracted by a company (“the Defendant”) who specialised in the delivery of ‘portacabins’.  Pete’s Client had quite a few problems obtaining payment from the Defendant despite working for them for some time.  Eventually, over £20,000 was outstanding to Pete’s Client.  The only explanation that the Defendant would offer regarding the non-payment was that credits were due from Pete’s Client but there was no detail as to what these credits may relate to.

    Upon issuing proceedings, the Defendant immediately made a payment of £13,000.00 but still refused to provide details as to why credits were due for the remaining balance.  The balance was allocated by the Court to the Fast Track and standard directions were issued.  The case proceeded along these directions and the Defendant did the bare minimum to comply with these.  This meant that they offered up no further details as to why they were disputing the balance.  

    Eventually, the day before the hearing, the Defendant tried to get the matter adjourned due to ill health.  Pete’s Client stood firm and asked the Court not to adjourn the hearing.  The Court could see that the Defendant had no real argument in this case and refused the adjournment.  Pete’s Client then presented their case and, due to the clear nature of the documents Pete had prepared with them, Judgment was awarded for the full debt plus ALL costs which had been incurred.
     
  • Small Claims Victory Plus Costs
    Pete’s Client was a large national limited (formerly PLC) company involved in the delivery of items on a door-to-door basis.  Pete’s Client had delivered hundreds of catalogues on behalf of a ‘fashion’ business based in London (“the Defendant”).  The Defendant was refusing to pay on the basis that none of the catalogues had been delivered; they claimed that all catalogues had been dumped.

    From the very beginning of this case, the Defendant proved to be very adept at time-wasting and putting up smokescreens without any real evidence to back up the majority of their defence.  This matter was allocated to the Small Claims Track which generally means that no costs (other than very limited fixed costs) can be recovered which made it difficult for Pete’s Client to make the decision to proceed with this case because, due to the Defendant’s behaviour, costs were racking up.  However, on several occasions, Pete was able to make successful Applications for costs against the Defendant due to the Defendant not complying with Court Orders and wasting time.

    This case eventually went to five hearings and, due to Pete’s Client’s perseverance and belief in their case, they were awarded Judgment for almost all of the monies they were claiming as well as the several costs awards.  This case shows that, even when a Defendant is doing their best to make you drop a Small Claims case by using delaying tactics and racking up costs, the right, profitable result can still be obtained.
     
  • Bare Denial Defence = Summary Judgment
    Pete Gardner’s Client was an industrial engineering company operating from three sites in Cambridgeshire.  They had supplied approximately £5,000 of aluminium honeycomb core to a company (“the Defendant”) who were refusing to pay but providing no specific details as to why this was.  

    An initial letter was sent to the Defendant by a colleague in our Commercial Recoveries Department but the Defendant failed to respond resulting in legal proceedings being issued on behalf of Pete’s Client.  The Defendant filed a very short Defence simply stating that the goods Pete’s Client had supplied were ‘faulty and unfit for purpose’.  Court rules state that any Defence filed cannot simply be a bare denial and must contain a coherent statement of facts.  

    This Defence clearly did not do that so it became obvious to Pete that a Summary Judgment Application should be made to the Court.  Summary Judgment Applications should be made when the Defendant has no real prospect of defending the Claim.  It also represented a quick way of getting judgment for Pete’s Client and, if successful, would be likely to result in Pete’s Client being awarded their legal costs of chasing the Defendant.

    Pete made the Application to the Court and served a copy on the Defendant.  Upon receipt, the Defendant called Pete as, due to the detailed nature of the Application and supporting documents, they became acutely aware that they had no case and did not want their liability to Pete’s Client, in terms of costs and interest, to increase any further.  Therefore, they immediately paid the debt in full together with all costs which had been incurred on Pete’s Client’s behalf.  Pete’s Client had finally recovered all monies owed to them and it had not cost them anything as the Defendant had paid all legal costs.
     

 

Testimonials

  • "Having worked closely with Peter Gardner on defended commercial matters for a number of years I have complete confidence in the guidance and assistance he provides, defended cases become much less daunting when he’s dealing with the file."

    Michael Carter
    OCS Group UK Limited

Our People