An application for an order for summary judgment on the claim under Part 24.2(a) CPR and the claim for payment of the debt is $18800 plus interest on that sum and the cost

Civil Advocacy (SGS:02) date: 10-10-03

Application for Summary Judgment in the County court

Adnam v John Delon

Sir/ Madam

I am here to represent the claimant Mr. Robert Adnam and my learned friend Mr. X will represent the defendant Mr. John Delon.

Sir/ Madam

This is an application for an order for summary judgment on the claim under Part 24.2(a) CPR and the claim for payment of the debt is $18800 plus interest on that sum and the cost. I refer to the claim form for the estimation of the cost and for the interest to the particulars of claim.

Sir

Mr. Robert worked to repair Mr. Deleon’s roof in June 2003 and also supplied materials to him at his request. Sir, if you see Exhibit RA 1 where the description of work has given.

Therefore, Mr. Robert charged $18800 for his work, which is referred to in paragraph 1 of the particulars of claim. However, Mr. Delon refused to pay because the work has not been done competently and this is an incomplete job.

Sir

The reason of seeking for summary judgment is on the evidence of Mr. Delon that he has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim and there is no reason why the disposal of the claim should await trial. Sir, the test for summary judgment is laid down under the CPR Rule 24.2 and this is in Blackstone’s Civil Practice 2003 at page 385 and paragraph is 34.10. In Swain v. Hillman (2001) Lord Wolf MR. explained the phrase particularly ‘no real prospect of succeeding’.

Now I will explain to you why Mr. Delon’s evidence is unreliable for this case and the reasons are as follows:

Sir, if you see in paragraph 7 in Delon’s witness statements where he alleged that Mr. Robert made contract with Mr. Delon’s company so called “Delon Design” and that my client was aware of the capacity in which Mr. Delon was acting. This allegation is totally untrue as my client never intended to make a contract with any limited company for the work to the roof. However, if you see the estimation for the work that my client sent him, dated 7th march 2003, and this is in Exhibit RA1. Where it was addressed to the defendant in person and he never mention about company at any stage only after my client finished the work, Mr. Delon asked to my client to make out his invoice to Delon Designs as it would look better for his accountant although it seemed an unimportant matter to my client.

In paragraph 6 of Mr. Delon’s witness statement where he alleged that my client work was defective and inadequate. My client is very experienced general builder and his practice basically in working on roofs. However, the roof was definitely watertight when my client had finished the work because the defendant and my client tested it, using a hosepipe on the roof and the defendant observing internally.

Finally, I would submit the defendant’s evidence is completely irrelevant for this case and Justice Webster categorises where it is appropriate to go behind the defendant’s evidence in Paclantic Financing Co Inc v. Moscow Narodny Bank Ltd (1983) 1 WLR page-1063 and paragraph 12.6.4.

Therefore, in this case I would request you to grant an order for summary judgment with full payment.

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.