100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached 4.6 TrustPilot
logo-home
Exam (elaborations)

Distinction skeleton argument for Strike out and Summary Judgement

Rating
-
Sold
-
Pages
9
Grade
A
Uploaded on
10-01-2026
Written in
2025/2026

This skeleton argument aids me to get a distinction for my Submission Advocacy use this structure to write your skeleton argument










Whoops! We can’t load your doc right now. Try again or contact support.

Document information

Uploaded on
January 10, 2026
Number of pages
9
Written in
2025/2026
Type
Exam (elaborations)
Contains
Questions & answers

Content preview

IN THE COUNTY COURT SITTING AT BIRMINGHAM Claim No. BRODD37

BETWEEN

MENELAUS DRINKS LIMITED

Claimant/Applicant

-and-

(1) MR KEITH MARRINER

(t/a The Queen’s Head)

(2) MRS RACQUEL MARRINER

(t/a The Queen’s Head)

Defendants/Respondents

_____________________________________


SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF
OF THE CLAIMANT/APPLICANT
_____________________________________


Introduction


1. The Claimant (‘C’) requests that the Court:


a. strike out in its entirety the Defendants’ (‘Ds’) defence and counterclaim
(‘DAC’) under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and enter judgment for C on the claim and
counterclaim; alternatively


b. enter summary judgment for C on its claim and against Ds on their
counterclaim under CPR 24.3.




1

, Pre-reading


2. The Court is likely to require 75 minutes to read the documentation. The key
documents are in bold.


a. Particulars of Claim dated 18 September 2025 (‘POC’);


b. Defence and Counterclaim dated 22 September 2025 (‘DAC’);


c. Witness Statement of Heema Roberts and attached exhibit (‘WSHR’ and
‘HR/1’);


d. Claimant’s standard terms and conditions of sale (“T&Cs” – attached to the
PoC – see in particular clauses 3.2, 5.2 and 6.1);


e. Draft Order;


f. Wrexham Association Football Club Ltd v Crucialmove Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ
237 (the fact that a summary judgment application involves allegations of bad
faith is not by itself a compelling reason for the matter to proceed to trial); and


g. AC Ward & Sons Ltd v Catlin (Five) Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 1098 (the principles
governing a summary judgment application; see 24.3.2 of WB 2025 Vol 1).


Factual Background


3. C supplies drinks to public houses; Ds own and operate two public houses.


4. The claim relates to a series of unpaid invoices, together totalling £82,831, which are
listed below and exhibited at HR/1. The disputed invoices will be grouped together for
convenience in this application and referred to throughout as follows:


(a) “The 2015 and 2016 invoices” comprising:
(i) Invoice dated 15.12.15, totalling £16,476;
(ii) Invoice dated 8.8.1 6, totalling £13,334.


(b) “The 2023 invoice” - Invoice dated 17.2.23, totalling £16,457.

2
£7.66
Get access to the full document:

100% satisfaction guarantee
Immediately available after payment
Both online and in PDF
No strings attached

Get to know the seller
Seller avatar
hurulain

Also available in package deal

Thumbnail
Package deal
DISTINCTION SKELETON ARGUMENTS
-
4 2026
£ 30.64 More info

Get to know the seller

Seller avatar
hurulain University of Reading
View profile
Follow You need to be logged in order to follow users or courses
Sold
7
Member since
2 year
Number of followers
5
Documents
23
Last sold
1 year ago

0.0

0 reviews

5
0
4
0
3
0
2
0
1
0

Recently viewed by you

Why students choose Stuvia

Created by fellow students, verified by reviews

Quality you can trust: written by students who passed their exams and reviewed by others who've used these revision notes.

Didn't get what you expected? Choose another document

No problem! You can straightaway pick a different document that better suits what you're after.

Pay as you like, start learning straight away

No subscription, no commitments. Pay the way you're used to via credit card and download your PDF document instantly.

Student with book image

“Bought, downloaded, and smashed it. It really can be that simple.”

Alisha Student

Frequently asked questions