Skeleton argument and case law PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Skeleton argument and case law PDF

Description

I NTHECOUNTYCOURTATMANCHESTER Cl a i m No .1 8 MA0 1 1 2 0 BETWEEN: MRARTHURBRI STOW Cl a i ma nt a nd-

MSLI SAHAWKE De f e nda nt

SKELETONARGUMENTONBEHALFOFTHECLAI MANT

Appl i c at i o n 1 .Th eCl a i ma n to p p o s e st h eDe f e n d a n t ’ sa p p l i c a t i o nt od i s mi s st h ede f a u l tj u d gme n t e n t e r e da g a i ns t h e ro n2Oc t o be r2 0 1 8o nt h eb a s i st h a tt heDe f e n d a n ti sun a b l et o s a t i s f yt h er e qu i r e me n t so fCPR1 3 . 3 . Fa c t s 2 .On1 2J ul y2 0 1 8 ,t h eCl a i ma n twa sd r i v i ngi nt h emi dd l el a n eo fa3 l a ne dr o a d , a p pr o a c h i n gar o un d a b o u tt og os t r a i gh to na tt h es e c o n de xi t( Pa r t i c ul a r so fCl a i m, pa r a s . 1&2, p.1) . 3 .Th eDe f e n d a n twa sp o s i t i o ne di nt h er i g h t h a n dl a n eoft h es a mer o a d , a n dwi t h o ut wa r n i n gd r o v ei n t ot heCl a i ma n t ’ sl a n ea n dc o l l i de dwi t ht h er e a ro fh i sv e h i c l e ( Par t i c ul ar so fCl a i m, pa r a. 2 , p. 1 ) .

1

4 .Asar e s u l t , t h eCl a i ma n ts u s t a i n e dawh i p l a s hi n j u r yt oh i sn e c ka n dl o we rb a c k , a n d d a ma g e st oh i sc a r( Pa r t i c ul ar so fCl a i m,pa r a . 4 , pp. 2 3 ) . 5 .De f a u l tJ u d g me n twa sa wa r d e dt ot heCl a i ma n to n2Oc t o b e r2 01 8o wi ngt ot h ef a c t t h a tt h eDe f e n d a n td i dn o tfil ea nAc kn o wl e dg me n to fSe r v i c e( J udgme ntf o r Cl a i ma nt , p.9) . La w 6 .Th er e l e v a n tp a r t so fCPR1 3 . 3 ( 1 )s t a t et ha tt h ec o u r t ‘ ma ys e ta s i d eo rv a r ya j u dg me n te n t e r e du n d e rPa r t1 2i f a .t h ed e f e n d a ntha sar e a lp r os p e c to fs u c c e s s f u l l yd e f e n d i n gt h ec l a i m;o r b .i ta pp e a r st ot h ec o u r tt h a tt he r ei ss o meot h e rgo o dr e a s o nwh y – i .t h ej u d g me n ts h o u l dbes e ta s i d eo rva r i e d ;or i i .t h ed e f e n d a n ts h o u l db ea l l o we dt od e f e n dt h ec l a i m. ’ 7 .CPR1 3 . 3( 2 )s t a t e st h ema t t e r st owh i c ht h ec o u r t‘ mu s th a v er e g a r di n c l u d ewh e t h e r t h ep e r s ons e e ki n gt os e ta s i det h ej u d g me n tma d ea na p p l i c a t i o nt odos op r o mp t l y ’ . 8 .Th ec o u r ti sr e s p e c t f u l l yr e mi n de dt h a tt h eb u r d e no fp r o o fr e s t su p ont hed e f e nd a n t a n dt h a t ade f e n c emus tn o tb e‘ f a l s e , f a n c i f ulo ri ma gi n a r y ’( ED&FMa nLi q ui d Pr o d uc t sLt dvPat e l[ 2 0 0 3]EWCACi v4 7 2) . 9 .Th ec o u r ti sf u r t h e rr e s p e c t f u l l yr e mi n d e dt h a tf o rade f e n d a n tt oa c tpr o mp t l y ,t h e y mus tdos owi t h‘ a l lr e a s o n a bl ec e l e r i t yi nt h ec i r c u ms t a n c e s ’( Kha nvEd g b as t o n Hol d i ng s[ 2 0 0 7 ]EWHC2 4 4 4( QB) ) . I s s ue s 1 0 . Ca nt heDe f e nd a n td e mo ns t r a t et h a tt h e r ea r er e a lpr o s p e c t sofs ho wi n gt h a tt h e Cl a i ma nt wa sa tf a u l ti n s t e a d ? 1 1 . Ca nt heDe f e nd a n ts h o wt h a tt h e r ei sag o o dr e a s o nf o rt hec a s et op r o c e e dt ot r i a l ?

2

1 2 . Wa st h ef a i l u r et ofil ea nAc kno wl e d gme n to fSe r vi c eas i g n i fic a n tb r e a c h , wa st he De f e n d a n t ’ smo v et oan e wh o u s eag o o de no u g hr e a s ont of a i lt or e s p o n da n di na l lo f t h ec i r c u ms t a n c e swa st h ea p p l i c a t i o nt os e ta s i d ema dep r omp t l y ? Submi s s i o ns TheDe f e nda ntdo e sno tha v er e a lpr os pe c t so fs uc c e s s f ul l yde f e ndi ngt hec l a i m Th eDe f e n d a n td o e sn oth a v eac r e di bl ewi t n e s s 1 3 . Th eDe f e n d a n tdi s pu t e sl i a bi l i t ya n di sa r g ui n gt h a tt h ea c c i d e n twa st h ef a u l to ft h e Cl a i ma nt ( Pr o po s e dDe f e nc ea ndCo unt e r c l a i m, pp.1 0 1 3) . 1 4 . El e a n o rWr i g h t i saf r i e n do ft h eDe f e n d a n t , h a vi n gb e e np a r to ft hes a mec l u bwh i c h me e t smo nt h l y( LHFi r s tW/ S, pa r a. 2 , p. 1 7 ;EW W/ S,pa r a. 2, p. 23 ) . Sh ei s t h e r e f o r eb i a s e da n dn o t ac r e d i bl ewi t n e s s . 1 5 . Sh ea l s oa d mi t t e dt oh a v i n gh a da tl e a s t4g l a s s e so fwi n ewh i c hi sas u b s t a n t i a l a mo u n to fa l c oh o la ndi st h u sf u r t h e ra nu n r e l i a b l ewi t n e s s( EW W/ S,pa r a. 2 ,pp. 2 3 2 4 ) . 1 6 . Th eDe f e n d a n t ’ sa r g u me ntd i s p u t i n gl i a b i l i t yi so nl ys up p o r t e db yEl e a no rWr i g ht . Owi n gt oh e rl a c ko fc r e d i b i l i t ya n du n r e l i a bi l i t y ,i ti sr e s p e c t f ul l ys u b mi t t e dt h e De f e n d a n th a sn or e a lp r o s pe c t o fs u c c e s s f u l l yd e f e n di n gt hi sc l a i m, a n ds ot h ed e f a u l t j u dg me n ts h o u l dn o tb es e ta s i d e . Th eCl a i ma n t ’ swi t n e s si smo r er e l i a b l e 1 7 . Th eCl a i ma n t ’ ss t a t e me n to fe v e n t si ss u p p o r t e da n dc o r r o b or a t e db yNi c oPa p h i t i s ( NPW/ S,pa r a s . 3 4 , p. 3 0) , whokn o wst h eCl a i ma n ta st h eCl a i ma nt s o me t i me s c o me si nt ot h et a k e a wa ywh e r eh ewo r k s( NPW/ S, pa r a. 5 , p. 3 0 ) . 1 8 . Hed o e sn o tkn o wt h eCl a i ma n twe l la ndi ti ss u bmi t t e dt h a th ei st h e r e f o r eamo r e r e l i a b l ewi t ne s swi t hal a c ko fb i a s .

3

1 9 . Th eCl a i ma n ti n v i t e st h ec ou r tt ofindt h a t t h i sf u r t h e rs h o wst h a tt h eDe f e n d a n th a sn o r e a lp r o s pe c tofs uc c e s s f u l l yd e f e nd i n gt h i sc l a i m. Noo t he rg oo dr e a s o n Non e e df o rc r o s s e x a mi n a t i o no ft h ewi t ne s s e s 2 0 . I ti sa c c e pt e dt ha tt h e r ea r ed i ffe r i n gv e r s i o n so fe v e n t s , b u ti ti sr e s p e c t f ul l ys u b mi t t e d t h a ta l lo ft h er e l e v a n ti n f o r ma t i o ni sa v a i l a b l ei nt h ewi t ne s ss t a t e me n t sp r o v i d e db y t h eCl a i ma n t , De f e n d a n t , El e a n o rWr i g h ta n dNi c oPa ph i t i s . 2 1 . I ti su n l i k e l yt h a ta n ymo r ei n f o r ma t i o nwi l lb ee x t r a c t e da tt r i a l , a n dt h e r e f o r ei t i s r e s pe c t f u l l ys u b mi t t e dt h a tt h ed i ffe r i n gv e r s i o n sofe v e n t sb e t we e nt heCl a i ma n ta n d De f e n d a n tc a nb ef u l l yg a r ne r e df r o mt h ewi t n e s ss t a t e me nt s . Ass u c h , i ti ss u b mi t t e d t h e r ewo u l db en or i s ko ft u r n i n gt h i si n t e r i ma p p l i c a t i o ni n t oami ni t r i a l( Swa i nv Hi l l ma n[ 20 0 1 ]1Al lER9 1) . 2 2 . Ass u b mi t t e da b o v e , t h eDe f e nd a n t ’ sv e r s i o no fe v e n t si sc o r r o bo r a t e do n l ybya n u n r e l i a b l ea n dn o t c r e d i b l ewi t ne s s , a n da ss u c h , c a n n o ts t a n d . Th e r e f o r e , t h ec ou r ti s i n v i t e dt ofindt ha tt he r ei sn oo t h e rg o o dr e a s o nt opr o c e e dt ot r i a l , a st h e r ei sn o r e a s o nt h ewi t n e s ss t a t e me nt sp r o v i d e dn e e dt ob ef u r t h e rt e s t e d . Pr o mpt ne s sa ndr e l i e ff r o ms anc t i o n Se r i ou s n e s so fb r e a c h 2 3 . I ti ss ub mi t t e dt h a tt h eDe f e n da n t ’ sf a i l u r et or e s p o n dwi t h i nt hea p p r o p r i a t et i mei s e x t r e me l ys e r i o u s . Th ep r e j u di c et ot h eCl a i ma n ti ss u bs t a nt i a l ,e s p e c i a l l yi nl i g h to f t h ea l l oc a t e dd a t ef o rt h ed i s p os a lh e a r i n ga t on l y3d a y sa f t e rt hehe a r i n gf ort h i s i n t e r i ma p pl i c a t i o n( J udg me ntf o rt heCl ai ma nt , p. 9) . Re a s o n sf o rd e l a y

4

2 4 . Th eDe f e n d a n t ’ sr e a s on sf orh e rf a i l ur et oa c kn o wl e d g es e r v i c ei st h a tt h ec l a i mf o r m d i dn o tr e a c hh e ro wi n gt oh e rc h a n g eo fa dd r e s s( LHSe c o ndW/ S,par a.4 , p.2 1) . 2 5 . Ho we v e r , t h eDe f e nd a nt kne wo ft h eCl a i ma nt ’ si nt e n t i o nt oi s s u ep r o c e e d i n g s , a n d wa sa wa r ei na n yc a s el i t i g a t i onwa sl i k e l yt ooc c u rb e t we e nt h ep a r t i e sa sac l a i mf or m wa si s s u e do nhe rb e h a l fi nOc t o b e r( LHFi r s tW/ S, pa r a. 1 1 , p. 1 9 ) . Th e r e f o r ei t i s s u b mi t t e dt h a tt h eDe f e n d a n ts h o u l dh a v et a k e nr e a s o na b l es t e p st oma k et h eCl a i ma n t a wa r eofh e rc h a n g eofa d d r e s sa n dt ha tt hi sa d mi ni s t r a t i v ee r r o ri sn o tag o o de n o u g h r e a s o nf ort h eb r e a c ho u t l i n e da b o v e . 2 6 . Fu r t h e r mo r e , t h eDe f e n da n td i dn o ta p p l yf orr e l i e fu n t i l6De c e mb e r2 0 1 8, 6 6d a y s a f t e rd e f a u l tj ud g me ntwa se n t e r e da g a i n s th e r . Th i sd e l a ydo e sn o tf a l lwi t h i na n a c c e p t a bl et i me f r a me , t h ec a s eo fHar t I nv e s t me nt svFi d l e r[ 2 0 0 6 ]EWHC28 5 7 ( TCC)a p p l i e d ,wh e r e5 9d a y swa sh e l dt ob eo nt h eo ut e rl i mi t . Al loft h ec i r c u ms t a n c e so ft h ec a s e 2 7 . Th ec o u r ti sr e s p e c t f u l l yr e mi n de do fJ a c k s o nLJ ’ sc o mme n t si nt h ec a s eo fBr i t i s h GasTr ad i ngLt dvOa kCa s h&Ca r r yLt d[ 2 01 6 ]EWCACi v1 5 3 ,n a me l yh i sf o c us o nt h en e e d‘ a )f o rl i t i g a t i o nt ob ec o n d uc t e de ffic i e nt l ya n da tp r o p o r t i o n a t ec o s t ;a n d b )t oe nf o r c ec o mp l i a n c ewi t hr u l e s ,p r a c t i c ed i r e c t i o n sa n do r d e r s ’( [ 5 2 ] ) . 2 8 . Th eb r e a c hb yt h eDe f e n d a n twa ss e r i o u sa n dwi t ho utg oo dr e a s on . I ti ss ub mi t t e dt h a t t h i s , c o u p l e dwi t ht h eDe f e nd a n t ’ sf a i l u r et oa c t pr o mp t l ys h o wt h a tt h ep e n a l t yo f d e f a u l tj ud g me ntwo ul db ep r o po r t i o na t et ot h ebr e a c h . Tos e ta s i det h ed e f a u l t j u dg me n te n t e r e dwo ul db ec o n t r a r yt ot h eo v e r r i di n go b j e c t i v ea n dwo u l du n j u s t l y p r e j u d i c et heCl a i ma n t . Co nc l us i on

5

2 9 . I nt h ec i r c u ms t a n c e s ,t h eCl a i ma n ti n v i t e st hec o u r tt ofin dt h a tt h eDe f e n da n td o e sn ot h a v er e a lp r o s p e c t so fs u c c e s s f u l l yd e f e n d i n gt h ec l a i ma n dt h a tt h e r ei sn oo t h e rg o o d r e a s o nwh yt h ed e f a u l tj u d g me n te nt e r e do n2Oc t o b e r2 0 1 8s ho u l db es e ta s i d e . MMUCh a mb e r s , 7J a n ua r y2 0 1 9

6

I NTHECOUNTYCOURTATMANCHESTER Cl a i m No .1 8 MA0 1 1 2 0 BETWEEN: MRARTHURBRI STOW Cl a i ma nt a nd-

MSLI SAHAWKE De f e nda nt

CHRONOLOGYONBEHALFOFTHECLAI MANT

DATE 1 4J a n u a r y19 5 6

1 2J ul y2 0 1 8

EVENT REFERENCE Th eCl a i ma n t ’ sd a t eo fb i r t h Pa r t i c ul a r so fCl a i m,p a r a . 4

Th ea c c i d e n tb e t we e nt he

( p . 2 ) Pa r t i c u l a r sofCl a i m,p a r a s .

Cl a i ma n ta n dt h eDe f e n d a n t TheCl a i ma n td e v e l o p e d

1 2( p . 1 ) Pa r t i c u l a r sofCl a i m,p a r a .

a c u t ep a i ni nh i sn e c ka n d

4 ( j )( p . 2 )

b a c ka r o u n d2h o u r sa f t e r t h ea c c i d e n t 1 2J u l y2 0 1 8 1 4J u l y2 0 1 8 Th ep a i ni nt h eCl a i ma nt ’ s n e c ka n db a c kgr a d u a l l y

4 ( j )( p . 2 )

27Au gu s t2 0 1 8

i n c r e a s e di ns e v e r i t y Th eCl a i ma n twa se x a mi n e d

Me d i c a lRe p o r to fMr .

2Oc t o b e r2 0 1 8

b yMr . L. Fi n c h l e y , FRCS De f a u l tJ u dg me n twa s

Fi n c h l e y( p . 5 ) De f a u l tJ u d g me n t( p. 9 )

e n t e r e da g a i n s tt h e 1

Pa r t i c u l a r sofCl a i m,p a r a .

De f e n d a n t Mi d Oc t o be r2 0 1 8( a p p r o x . ) TheCl a i ma n t ’ ss ymp t o ms r e s o l v e da n db e c a me

Mi d J u l y2 0 1 8 Mi d -

i n t e r mi t t e n t TheCl a i ma n twa su n a b l et o

No v e mb e r2 0 18( a p p r o x . ) l o o ka f t e ra n d / o rp l a ywi t h h i sg r a n dc h i l d r e n Mi d J a n u a r y20 1 9( a p p r o x . ) Th eCl a i ma n t ’ ss y mpt o ms a r ee x p e c t e dt or e s o l v e

2

Pa r t i c u l a r so fCl a i m, p a r a . 4 ( l )( p . 3 )

Pa r t i c u l a r so fCl a i m, p a r a . 4 ( k )( p . 3 )

Pa r t i c u l a r so fCl a i m, p a r a . 4 ( m)( p . 3 )

ED&F Man Liquid Products Ltd Appellant v Patel & ANR Respondent Case No: A3/2002/1450 In The Supreme Court of Judicature Court of Appeal (Civil Division) 4 April 2003

[2003] C.P. Rep. 51 Before: Lord Justice Peter Gibson Lord Justice Potter April 4, 2003 On Appeal From the High Court of Justice (HHJ Dean QCSitting As A Judge of the High Court) Meaning of real prospect of success under CPR rr.13.3(1) and 24.2 - rejection of factual assertions as fanciful - relevance of previous admissions to assessment of defence some other good reason for setting aside judgment: observations of dishonesty against one defendant may prejudice second defendant if first defendant prevented from challenging observations at trial of claim against second defendant A judgment in default of acknowledgment of service was obtained against the First and Second Defendants as trading partners under a company group liable to pay for two shipments of goods. Both Defendants applied to set aside the default judgments: the Second Defendant was successful as the judge held that he had a real prospect of success on the basis of an assertion that he was not a partner in the company group; the First Defendant's application was refused as the judge addressed the merits as they appeared on the evidence before him and held that in the light of a series of unqualified admissions of the debt over a prolonged period there was no real prospect of a successful defence. In the course of his judgment, the judge observed that the First Defendant's defence was almost certainly dishonest. Held, Dismissing the appeal by the First Defendant, 1. As the phrase “real prospect of successfully defending the claim” appeared in both CPR rr.13.3(1) and 24.2, the draftsman may be taken to have contemplated a similar test under each rule, subject to the question of burden of proof (in that that under the former the overall burden of proof rests upon the claimant to establish that there are grounds for his belief that the respondent has no real prospect of success whereas, under the latter, the burden rests upon the defendant to satisfy the court that there is good reason why a judgment regularly obtained should be set aside). The distinction between a realistic and fanciful prospect of success appropriately reflected the observation in the Saudi Eagle case that the defence sought to be argued must carry some degree of conviction. Both approaches require the defendant to have a case which is better than merely arguable, as was formerly the case under RSCOrd.14 . 2. Whilst it is certainly the case under both CPR rr.13.3(1) and 24.2 that the court is in no position to conduct a mini-trial, the court does not have to accept without analysis everything said by a party in his statements before the court. In some cases it may be clear that there is no real substance in factual assertions made, particularly if contradicted by contemporary documents. If so, issues which are dependent upon those factual assertions may be susceptible of disposal at an early stage so as to save the cost and delay of trying an issue the outcome of which is inevitable.

3. Where there is a claim or judgment for monies due and issues of fact are raised by a defendant for the first time which, standing alone would demonstrate a triable issue, if it is apparent that, with full knowledge of the facts raised, the defendant has previously admitted the debt and/or made payments on account of it, a judge will be justified in taking such acknowledgements into account as an indication of the likely substance of the issues raised and the ultimate success of the defence belatedly advanced. 4. In the present case the judge was entitled to reject as devoid of substance or conviction such explanation as was advanced for the making of those admissions and was entitled to conclude that the First Defendant lacked any real prospect of successfully defending the claim. 5. It was unfortunate that the judge made observations as to the likelihood that the defence was dishonest, in a situation where refusal to set aside the judgment inevitably meant that the First Defendant would be deprived of the opportunity to give evidence or cross- examine in relation to the circumstances surrounding the admissions made. The observation was unnecessary and collateral to the judge's decision. Were there reason to suppose that the matter would indeed proceed to trial against the Second Defendant, he may himself be prejudiced by reason of the judge's aspersions upon the advancement of a defence to which he was a party and would himself be entitled fully to litigate: there might then have been some other good reason for setting judgment aside against the First Defendant on terms that the entire sum claimed be paid into court. However, in the present case the Claimants had decided against pursuing the Second Defendant to trial

Rules of court referred to.

CPR, r.13.3(1)(a) , CPR, Pt 24 RSC Ord.14 .

Alpine Bulk Transport Co Inc v Saudi Eagle Shipping Co Inc [1986] 2 Lloyds Rep. 221. Evans v Bartram[1937] A.C. 473. International Finance Corporation Utexafrica Sprl [2001] C.L.C. 1361. Swain v Hillman[2001] 1 All E.R. 91; [2001] C.P. Rep. 16. Three Rivers DC v Bank of England (No.3)[2001] UKHL 16; [2001] 2 All E.R. 513.

Appeal from the High Court, order of H.H. Judge Dean Q.C. (sitting as a Judge of the High Court

Representation Mr Robert Thomas (instructed by Clyde & Co ) for the appellant Mr Simon Bryan (instructed by Mills & Co ) for the respondent

Mr Salim Khan v Edgbaston Holdings Limited (A Company incorporated in Gibraltar) Case No: TLQ/07/0848 High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division 17 October 2007

[2007] EWHC 2444 (QB) 2007 WL 4610467 Before: His Honour Judge Peter Coulson QC (Sitting as a Judge of the High Court) Date: Wednesday, 17th October 2007, Hearing Dates: 16th and 17th October 2007

Representation Mr. C. Davey (instructed by Messrs. Ellis Taylor ) for the Claimant. Miss T. Cox (instructed by Messrs. Levys ) for the Defendant.

Judgment

His Honour Judge Peter Coulson QC:

A. Introduction

1 By a claim form issued and served on 25th September 2006, the claimant sought damages from the defendant company. The particulars of claim served on 31st October 2006 made plain that the claim arose out of the claimant's purchase from the defendant of two properties, one in SW10 and the other in W14 (“the properties”) for a total of £7.7 million. The particulars of claim alleged that the claimant purchased the properties on the basis of fraudulent and/or negligent misrepresentations by the defendant as to their value, and as to the existence of tenants in those properties whose rent would have covered the claimant's mortgage. The principal element of the claim is the difference between the purchase price (£7.7 million), and the actual value of the properties (said to be £2.6 million), making a claim for damages in excess of £5 million. 2 The defendant failed to acknowledge service or file a defence and, on 11th December 2006, judgment in default against the defendant was entered by Master Eyre, with damages to be assessed. The hearing of that assessment was first fixed for 22nd May 2007, but on that occasion the defendant indicated, for the first time, that it wanted to set aside the judgment. The application to set aside was eventually made on 4th June 2007. A condition of that application imposed by Aikens J, that it could only be made if the defendant paid £1 million into court, was subsequently revoked by Underhill J. This is the long-delayed hearing of the defendant's application ...