The original defence was struck out for a technical reason only, namely CPR 16.5 compliance. That did not mean the court accepted the claimant’s case or considered it strong. It simply meant the defence, as first filed, did not sufficiently engage with the allegations in a way the rules require. The amended defence corrected that and squarely exposed the weaknesses in the claimant’s case.
Once the amended defence was before the court, the judge had several options. The judge could have struck the claim out immediately, ordered further and better particulars, or taken the common small-claims approach of allowing the case to proceed but forcing the claimant to finally put their cards on the table. The Allocation Notice strongly suggests the judge chose the latter.
The directions requiring the claimant to produce the contract, landowner authority, clear allegations of breach, a breakdown of the sum claimed, and proper photographic evidence are not routine filler. These are fundamental elements that should already exist if the claim were properly pleaded. Their inclusion indicates that the judge is not satisfied the claim can simply proceed on the basis of the generic Particulars of Claim issued by DCB Legal.
The fact that there is no express automatic strike-out sanction does not mean anything is missing or that the court is being indulgent. Many judges deliberately avoid self-executing sanctions at allocation stage. Instead, they preserve discretion to exclude evidence, dismiss the claim, or strike it out at trial if the claimant fails to comply or produces inadequate material.
In practical terms, this is not a lifeline for the claimant. It is a procedural test. The claimant now has to prove a case they failed to plead properly at the outset. That means exposing the landowner contract, explaining how a very short ANPR stay can amount to a breach, justifying the inflated sum claimed, and surviving scrutiny from a defendant who understands the issues.
Based on many years experience with DCB Legal claims, it is 99.9% certain that the claimant will discontinue once they are required to comply with these directions. Their business model depends on volume and default, not on defending weak cases to trial. A full hearing remains remotely possible, but it is not the most probable outcome.
I expect you will receive an N279 Notice of Discontinuance on or before 7 January. If you haven't received on by 6th January, let me know here and I will put something together you can use on the 7th. No point putting any effort into a WS if they are going to discontinue anyway.
