Mount Holyoke College. ..Stanford University. ... University Of Chicago.
LA3001 (LA3001)
Essay
SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT
9 views 0 purchase
Course
LA3001 (LA3001)
Institution
Mount Holyoke College. ..Stanford University. ... University Of Chicago.
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT GUILDFORD Claim No AYJ3649
BETWEEN:
MR MARK PEMBERTON Claimant
and
MR GEOFF SHORT (trading as QUALITY WINDOWS) Defendant
SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT,
This skeleton argument opposes the Defendant's application to set aside the default judgment from 9 N...
Mount Holyoke College. ..Stanford University. ... University Of Chicago.
LA3001 (LA3001)
All documents for this subject (1)
Seller
Follow
hamzasaifwarraichgrw
Content preview
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT GUILDFORD Claim No AYJ3649
BETWEEN:
MR MARK PEMBERTON Claimant
and
MR GEOFF SHORT (trading as QUALITY WINDOWS) Defendant
SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT
1. INTRODUCTION
1. This skeleton argument is submitted on behalf of the Claimant, Mr. Mark Pemberton
("C"), in opposition to the Defendant, Mr. Geoff Short, trading as Quality Windows ("D"),
application to set aside the default judgment entered against him on 9 November 2022
under CPR Part 12. This application is made under CPR r.13.3.
2. Pre-Reading and Time Estimate:
2. The C will be referring to the following documents:
In the event the time is short, the court will find it helpful to focus its attention on the
documentation/ cases set out bold in the list below.
a) Claim form (CF) with Particulars of Claims (“POC”) Dated 20-10-2022
b) Application Notice Dated 16-11-2022
, c) Judgement in Default Dated 09-11-2022
d) Witness Statement of Geoff Short (W/S GS) Dated 16-11-2022
e) Witness Statement of Mark Pemberton (W/S MP) Dated 23-11-2022
f) Exhibits (GS1, GS2)
g) Doyle v White City Stadium [1935] 1 KB 110 All ER
h) ED&F Man Liquid Products Ltd v Patel [2003] EWCA Civ 472
i) Hadley V Buxandale [1854] EWHC J70
j) Three Rivers DC v Bank of England (No 3) [2001] 2 All ER 513
k) Swain v. Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91
l) Denton v TH White [2014] EWCA Civ 906
3. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS:
3. The Claimant (C) is the freehold owner of Prandergast, Windmill Lane, Ockhurst, Surrey,
whereas the Defendant (D) was acting for purposes relating to his trade, business or
profession in the design, manufacture and installation of hand-made window and door units,
in a variety of styles, using both old and modern materials. (W/S MP Para 1), and (POC
Para 1).
4. On 2nd March 2021, The Defendant inspected the property and provided a quotation for
work. (W/S MP Para 6), During the visit C discussed the renovation work and made it clear
what he required. Contract was to design, supply, installation of 15 sash windows units, 3
sets of French doors, and 2 single hardwood paneled at the claimant windows, French doors
in Georgian Style. (POC Para 3). In particular, all units to be made of hardwood (Mahogany).
Claimant (C) also gave him Sketch plan and photograph during the meeting on 2nd March
2021, which are annexed (Exhibit GS1, GS2). “C” also gave “D” a Written paper no that day
on which there were all written measurements. (W/S MP Para 7).
5. The C had entered into a contract with the D on the 16th of April 2022 to carry out
renovations at C’s house. However, upon completion of the work, C discovered that the work
was not carried out as per the agreed terms of the contract. C wishes to avoid paying the
balance of the price, and to reclaim what he has already paid. The claim form was issued on
19 October 2022. It was served together with the Particulars of Claim on 20 October 2022
by first class post at the D’s business address, namely Old Tanners, Malting Surrey, KT12
0BH.
6. Following this, the service was deemed to be effected on 22 October 2021 and the D
must acknowledge service or file a defence within 14 days, before 5 November 2022. 6. The
D had failed to acknowledge serve or file a defence. Therefore, the C had requested and
entered a judgment in default on 9 November 2022. This judgement in default had satisfied
all the requirements under CPR 12.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller hamzasaifwarraichgrw. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $26.69. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
