Scribd
Upload
231 views3 pages

Script For Advocacy Presentation

The Defendant's lawyer requests a 14-day extension to file their Defense and Counterclaim in response to the Claimant's lawsuit seeking £5,000 for faulty electric woks. The lawyer argues that the Defendant has a valid case as the woks overheated and caused a fire, and that previous delays were due to a key employee's stress leave and difficulty scheduling an expert inspection. Granting the extension would allow time for expert reports and properly handle the case at a proportionate cost, as the Defendant has suffered over £85,000 in losses.

Uploaded by

Beth King
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
231 views3 pages

Script For Advocacy Presentation

The Defendant's lawyer requests a 14-day extension to file their Defense and Counterclaim in response to the Claimant's lawsuit seeking £5,000 for faulty electric woks. The lawyer argues that the Defendant has a valid case as the woks overheated and caused a fire, and that previous delays were due to a key employee's stress leave and difficulty scheduling an expert inspection. Granting the extension would allow time for expert reports and properly handle the case at a proportionate cost, as the Defendant has suffered over £85,000 in losses.

Uploaded by

Beth King
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Draft script

Good morning Master

I am Beth King of Roberts Connell & Associates, representing the Defendant, the Noodle
Exchange Limited.

My friend, Richard Jefferson of Trappe & Co is representing the Claimant, Fuji Fayre Limited.

Master, this is the Defendant’s application under Civil Procedure Rule 3.1(2)(a) for an
extension of time of 14 days to file the Defence and Counterclaim.

Master, I have sent you a copy of the application notice and the chronology, have you
received them? (pause)

By way of a brief background to the case, the Claimant is seeking payment for £5,000
excluding VAT under a contract entered into between the parties on the 7 January 2022 for
the purchase of two electric woks by the Defendant to use in two of their most successful
restaurant chains. The Defendant has withheld the payment on the basis that the goods, the
woks, appear to be faulty.

Master, can I refer you to the chronology to see what steps have already been taken?
(pause) The Claimant issued the letter of claim on the 2nd of March to which the Defendant
responded demonstrating intention to seek compensation for losses suffered.

On the 23rd of March, the Claimant issued and posted a claim form with the particulars of
claim attached.

The Defendant then filed an acknowledgement of service on the 6 th of April within the time
limited stipulated by CPR 10.3(1)(b) indicating an intention to defend the claim with a
counter-claim.

It was then agreed between the parties pursuant to CPR 15.5(1) to extend the deadline for
filing the defence by 7 days on the 19th of April. This extended the deadline from the 22nd of
April to the 29th of April.

The defendant then requested a further 21 day extension and the Claimant kindly granted
14 days on the 26th of April. This extended the deadline to the 13th of May.

On the 5th of May the Defendant sought a further 7 day extension but this was refused by
the Claimant.

Master, I have 3 submissions to make:

The first is that the Defendant’s defence and counterclaim is valid and clear and has real
prospect of success and should be given sufficient time to prepare. The goods that the
Claimant undertook to supply appear to be faulty; the woks were overheating when used
resulting in one causing a fire in the Defendant’s Solihull restaurant causing significant
damage. It was an implied term of the contract that the goods would be of satisfactory
quality but these goods do not appear to have been which needs confirming by our expert
as I will go onto explain. The fire has caused significant reputational damage and resulting
loss in profits as well as renovation costs in the region of £75,000. Due to the goods’ defects
the Defendant has stopped using both woks which means the money spent on advertising
the use of the woks at the restaurants of £10,000 has been wasted.

The fact that the Claimant’s Mr Asquith who is a professional electrical engineer also came
to inspect the woks and found nothing wrong with them gives rise to a possible negligence
claim as well.

Master, the second submission is that there is good reason for the previous delays and the
need for a further 14 day extension. The additional delay caused by having served this
application to court and time spent preparing for this hearing has meant that the extension
of 14 days rather than 7 days should be granted. Master I refer you to CPR 2.11 and 15.5
pursuant to which the court has the power to grant the extension or more than 28 days.

The first and second extensions granted on the 19th of April were necessary due to the
Defendant's Hana Yoshida being away for health reasons under the suggestion of her stress
counsellor due to severe stress caused by the fire at the restaurant and the subsequent
negative publicity and loss of business profits. All of the documentation on the matter was
held in Hanna’s office which could not be accessed whilst she was away so no defence/
counter-claim preparation work could commence until she returned.

The third request for extension was necessary due to the wok expert being unable to
inspect the woks until the 11th of May whose report is crucial for ascertaining that the woks
were indeed faulty and therefore for filing the defence and counter-claim; it was very
difficult to find this expert so another could not have been found any quicker. The
Defendant is also still currently seeking an expert to quantify the counter-claim amount
which is necessary to find out before serving.

The third and final submission is the overriding objective under CPR 1 to deal with cases
justly and at a proportionate cost. The Defendant has attempted to reach an agreement
with the claimant over an extension of time for serving the defence/counter-claim as soon
as it became apparent that this was necessary. As the claimant as not complied with its
obligation under the contract to supply goods of satisfactory quality, the defendant should
be given extra time to prepare this counter-claim with appropriate advice from experts. It
would be unjust to prohibit the defendant from serving a well drafted and proper counter-
claim/defence with the advice of experts. Furthermore, despite quantum of the case not
having been professionally valued yet, the amount of loss is already at £85,000 excluding
VAT which is a substantial amount. Additionally, given the reputational damage caused to a
successful business, this case is of great importance to the Defendant and deserves being
adequately defended.

Master, those are my submissions, and I respectfully suggest an order for the extension of
time of 14 days for filing the Defence + Counter claim to be made. Thank you.
Currently: 5 minutes, 13 seconds in length

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy