“PLEADINGS ARE INTENDED TO IDENTIFY THE ISSUES, NOT OBSCURE THEM”: COMMENTS ON STATEMENTS OF CASE: THEY SHOULD PROVIDE LIGHT NOT DARKNESS

November 21, 2023 · by · in Statements of Case

There have been a number of cases recently where judges have commented on the state of the pleadings. We see observations being made by Mr Justice Ritchie in the decision today in DMH Electrical (UK) Ltd v MK City Group Ltd [2023] EWHC 2960.

“Thus, no mention was made of the MVHR work in the response. By this approach the Defendant appears to have been attempting to keep obscure the interpretation point on the scope of C1: namely the assertion that the Claimant’s claim, as pleaded, did not cover the installation of the MVHRs. However, this point was taken at trial. I do not consider that this was an appropriate way forward. The pleadings are intended to identify the issues, not obscure them.”

THE CASE

The judge was hearing an appeal where the defendant was held liable to pay £63,185 on outstanding invoices for electrical work done on construction sites. The defendant had subcontracted the work to the claimant and the work had been done, there were no allegations in relation to the work being unsatisfactory. The defence rested largely on contractual issue.

THE DEFENDANT’S PLEADING

The defendant’s appeal failed.  On appeal Mr Justice Ritchie was critical of the way that the defendant had not pleaded issues, but raised them at trial.

THE JUDGMENT ON THIS ISSUE

The judge considered the defendant’s pleaded case and its response to Part 18 questions that had been asked.

    1. In relation to C1 the Defendant defended as follows:
“3. Paragraph 4 is admitted, save that the quotation was accepted by the Defendant orally. The email attached to the Particulars of Claim and marked Cl referred to 59 specific plots at the Development Site, the details of which were provided by the Defendant to the Claimant in an email dated 19 June 2017.”
Furthermore, at paragraph 9a. the Defendant pleaded:
“9a. It is admitted that the Claimant carried out all of the works referred to in the email marked C1.”
    1. I note that no mention is made of the MVHR work in the defence in relation to C1.
    1. In the defence in relation to C2, the Defendant pleaded thus:
“4. Paragraph 5 is denied. The email attached to the Particulars of Claim and marked C2 does not refer to any specific plots at the Development Site, and instead sets out the Claimant’s price quotation for categories of houses. The email at C2 does not set out either the total number of houses of each category, nor a total price for the works referred to therein. As such, the email at C2 does not constitute an offer capable of being accepted, or alternatively the Second Contract was void for uncertainty.”
    1. Furthermore, in paragraph 9 of the defence, the same was repeated in relation to C2.
    1. The Claimant sought to understand the Defendant’s case and made a part 18 request for further and better particulars. In relation to C1 the Defendant was asked to look through a served, itemised schedule of work items done and indicate what was in dispute. This schedule expressly set out the works done including the installation of multiple MVHR units. This is what was asked:
“REQUEST
1. Please confirm whether it is accepted that the Claimant was instructed to carry out all of the work identified in Schedule 1 pursuant to the First Contract and, insofar as the same is not accepted, please identify each and every item of work contained in Schedule l which the Defendant contends the Claimant was not instructed to carry out pursuant to the First Contract.
2. Please state whether it is accepted that the value of the work shown in respect of each item on Schedule 1 accurately reflects the price which the Defendant agreed to pay to the Claimant in respect of the identified item of work pursuant to the First Contract and, insofar as the same is not accepted in respect of any of the items of work, please state what price the Defendant contends it agreed to pay in respect of the said items of work pursuant to the First Contract.”
    1. Unhelpfully this was refused in the part 18 response. The Defendant responded thus:
“Response
1. The Defendant does not accept that the Claimant is entitled to a response to this request for the following reasons:

a. The Claimant served a Reply on the Defendant under cover of a letter dated 9 August 2021. It is therefore not accepted that the requests made are reasonably necessary to allow the Claimant to prepare its case or to understand the case which it has to meet, in breach of paragraph 1.2 of Practice Direction 18.

b. The Defendant has already admitted, at paragraph 8a. of the Defence, that the Claimant carried out all of the works which it was obliged to carry out pursuant to the First Contract, as defined at paragraph 4 of the Particulars of Claim:

i. To the extent that the works referred to in Schedule 1 form part of the First Contract, as defined at paragraph 4 of the Particulars of Claim, the fact that the Claimant carried out all of those works is not in dispute in the proceedings.

ii . To the extent that the works referred to in Schedule 1 do not form part of the First Contract, as defined at paragraph 4 of the Particulars of Claim, those matters do not form part of the Claimant’s case and are not relevant in the proceedings. To this extent, the prefatory wording to this request is incorrect in stating that the Claimant has made any relevant allegation.

2. The Defendant does not accept that the Claimant is entitled to a response to this request for the reasons set out at Response 1 above.”
  1. Thus, no mention was made of the MVHR work in the response. By this approach the Defendant appears to have been attempting to keep obscure the interpretation point on the scope of C1: namely the assertion that the Claimant’s claim, as pleaded, did not cover the installation of the MVHRs. However, this point was taken at trial. I do not consider that this was an appropriate way forward. The pleadings are intended to identify the issues, not obscure them.
Tags: , ,