STUDYCLOCK EXAM REVIEW
CIVIL ADVOCACY
UNIT 8 – HURST SAMPLE
IN THE COUNTY COURT MONEY CLAIMS CENTRE Claim No. 19/0489
BETWEEN
MRS ALEXANDRA HURST Claimant
and
SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL Defendant
DEFENCE
1. Save that the damage to the stonework of the upstream parapet did not
compromise the safety of the bridge, and that the weather erosion, though
widespread in area, was superficial1, Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the Particulars of
Claim are admitted.
1 You have to admit the damage to the stonework, and the weather erosion. If (as in this case) you
need to qualify that admission, this is the place to do so. It may require adding extra paragraphs, as in
Davies v T.E. Penny & Sons – if so, be careful to refer to these extra paragraphs in your admission.
This study source was downloaded by 100000843285337 from CourseHero.com on 05-25-2023 03:19:57 GMT -05:00
bc8989e57fcb1f28738163c57d6f9f46cb217f30.docx 1
©The University of Law
https://www.coursehero.com/file/87144481/DEFENCEdocx/
, 2. On or immediately after 1st April 2020 the Defendant, through its inspector, Mr
Roger Orton FRICS, inspected the bridge, after which he:
a) listed the Bridge for “priority 1 repair”, which meant that the repairs were
urgent and would be carried out within three months of 1st April 2020, this
being the earliest time by which the Defendant could reasonably have been
expected to repair the bridge railings [check this last allegation - omit it if
incorrect];
b) caused red and white warning tape to be placed over the railings at the
point where they were damaged; and
c) caused a sign to be erected at both sides of the bridge, warning members of
the public to beware, and not to use the bridge railings 2.
3. The Defendant is unable to admit or deny paragraph 4 of the Particulars of
Claim, and requires the Claimant to prove the facts alleged in that paragraph.
4. The Defendant denies that, as a matter of law, it owed the Claimant a duty of
care in Negligence to repair the bridge, either as alleged in paragraph 5 of the
Particulars of Claim or at all3.
5. The Defendant denies the negligence and the breach of statutory duty pleaded
in paragraph 5 of the Particulars of Claim and that any accident the Claimant
may have suffered was caused thereby. Paragraph 2 above is repeated 4.
2 These matters form the heart of your defence. It is convenient to set them out fully in this separate
paragraph, and to repeat this paragraph later in your Defence where those facts ought to be pleaded,
either because they are appropriate, or because they are required by CPR r. 16.5(2). Note how this is
done in this pleading.
3 This is pure matter of law: Highway Authorities have never owed a private duty of care, at common
law, to repair highways whose poor condition they have not caused themselves; their only duty on this
is statutory: Goodes v East Sussex CC [2000] 1 WLR 1356. Equally, the duty to maintain the highway
under s.41 does not extend to a duty to erect warning signs (or other street furniture), nor is there a
duty at common law in negligence to do this, where the highway authority did not cause the original
hazard (the damage to the bridge), and so cannot be used as negligence or as a breach of statutory
duty in the Particulars of Claim: Gorringe v Calderdale MBC [2004] 1 WLR 1057. As the Claimant has
pleaded negligence you may correctly deny that it applies - an exception to the old rule that you plead
facts rather than law (see CPR PD16 para 13.3(1)).
4 Note once again the technique of denying an allegation, and “repeating” a paragraph which contains
your
case in support of that denial, instead of pleading the reasons all over again.
This study source was downloaded by 100000843285337 from CourseHero.com on 05-25-2023 03:19:57 GMT -05:00
bc8989e57fcb1f28738163c57d6f9f46cb217f30.docx 2
©The University of Law
https://www.coursehero.com/file/87144481/DEFENCEdocx/
CIVIL ADVOCACY
UNIT 8 – HURST SAMPLE
IN THE COUNTY COURT MONEY CLAIMS CENTRE Claim No. 19/0489
BETWEEN
MRS ALEXANDRA HURST Claimant
and
SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL Defendant
DEFENCE
1. Save that the damage to the stonework of the upstream parapet did not
compromise the safety of the bridge, and that the weather erosion, though
widespread in area, was superficial1, Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the Particulars of
Claim are admitted.
1 You have to admit the damage to the stonework, and the weather erosion. If (as in this case) you
need to qualify that admission, this is the place to do so. It may require adding extra paragraphs, as in
Davies v T.E. Penny & Sons – if so, be careful to refer to these extra paragraphs in your admission.
This study source was downloaded by 100000843285337 from CourseHero.com on 05-25-2023 03:19:57 GMT -05:00
bc8989e57fcb1f28738163c57d6f9f46cb217f30.docx 1
©The University of Law
https://www.coursehero.com/file/87144481/DEFENCEdocx/
, 2. On or immediately after 1st April 2020 the Defendant, through its inspector, Mr
Roger Orton FRICS, inspected the bridge, after which he:
a) listed the Bridge for “priority 1 repair”, which meant that the repairs were
urgent and would be carried out within three months of 1st April 2020, this
being the earliest time by which the Defendant could reasonably have been
expected to repair the bridge railings [check this last allegation - omit it if
incorrect];
b) caused red and white warning tape to be placed over the railings at the
point where they were damaged; and
c) caused a sign to be erected at both sides of the bridge, warning members of
the public to beware, and not to use the bridge railings 2.
3. The Defendant is unable to admit or deny paragraph 4 of the Particulars of
Claim, and requires the Claimant to prove the facts alleged in that paragraph.
4. The Defendant denies that, as a matter of law, it owed the Claimant a duty of
care in Negligence to repair the bridge, either as alleged in paragraph 5 of the
Particulars of Claim or at all3.
5. The Defendant denies the negligence and the breach of statutory duty pleaded
in paragraph 5 of the Particulars of Claim and that any accident the Claimant
may have suffered was caused thereby. Paragraph 2 above is repeated 4.
2 These matters form the heart of your defence. It is convenient to set them out fully in this separate
paragraph, and to repeat this paragraph later in your Defence where those facts ought to be pleaded,
either because they are appropriate, or because they are required by CPR r. 16.5(2). Note how this is
done in this pleading.
3 This is pure matter of law: Highway Authorities have never owed a private duty of care, at common
law, to repair highways whose poor condition they have not caused themselves; their only duty on this
is statutory: Goodes v East Sussex CC [2000] 1 WLR 1356. Equally, the duty to maintain the highway
under s.41 does not extend to a duty to erect warning signs (or other street furniture), nor is there a
duty at common law in negligence to do this, where the highway authority did not cause the original
hazard (the damage to the bridge), and so cannot be used as negligence or as a breach of statutory
duty in the Particulars of Claim: Gorringe v Calderdale MBC [2004] 1 WLR 1057. As the Claimant has
pleaded negligence you may correctly deny that it applies - an exception to the old rule that you plead
facts rather than law (see CPR PD16 para 13.3(1)).
4 Note once again the technique of denying an allegation, and “repeating” a paragraph which contains
your
case in support of that denial, instead of pleading the reasons all over again.
This study source was downloaded by 100000843285337 from CourseHero.com on 05-25-2023 03:19:57 GMT -05:00
bc8989e57fcb1f28738163c57d6f9f46cb217f30.docx 2
©The University of Law
https://www.coursehero.com/file/87144481/DEFENCEdocx/
