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.


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.


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.