They have sent this because your defence hit a nerve. Your defence forces them to confront that their pleaded Particulars were sparse, generic, and vulnerable to strike-out reasoning. They are trying to regain control of the case without doing the one thing that actually matters in litigation: serving proper Particulars (or properly seeking permission to amend them).
They are attempting three things at once.
First, they are trying to persuade you (and later, potentially, the court) that your CPR 16.4 point is “just technical” and that you “clearly understand the claim anyway”. That is a standard tactic. It is not a legal answer to a deficient pleading. The rules require them to plead a coherent cause of action with proper particulars. A letter is not a statement of case.
Second, they are trying to plug the holes by giving you a bullet-point list of what they say they will rely on. This is not an amended Particulars of Claim, not verified by a statement of truth, and not necessarily something the court has allowed them to substitute for proper pleadings. In other words, they are trying to get the benefit of proper particulars without taking the procedural steps and risks that come with serving them.
Third, they are applying pressure with a settlement pitch and a short deadline. The timing is deliberate. They want you distracted by “pay us within 7 days” and to shift your focus away from court deadlines and case management. They also push continuous payment authority (CPA), which is convenient for them and risky for you.
The important giveaway is this: they are still trying to run “driver or keeper” in the alternative, and they still do not identify, in any proper pleaded way, the contractual clause relied upon, the precise facts said to constitute the breach, or the basis for keeper liability. They are effectively saying “trust us, we’ll set it out later if required”. Courts do not run on “we’ll explain later”.
Why they sent it now is simple. They know your defence is capable of persuading a judge that this is exactly the kind of bulk, low-detail claim that should never have been issued in that form. They are trying to look reasonable, make you look unreasonable, and steer you into paying before the court forces them to do proper work.
What you should do in response is keep control. Do not phone. Do not argue emotionally. Do not miss any court deadline. You reply to (1) knock down the idea that a solicitor’s email cures defective pleadings, (2) record that you do not consent to amendments by stealth, and (3) make clear you will oppose any attempt to retrofit a coherent case unless the court orders it and appropriate directions are made.
For now, email the following response to them at litigation@moorsidelegal.co.uk and CC yourself:
Subject: Claim number [xxxx] – your email dated [date]
Dear Sirs,
I acknowledge receipt of your email.
It is remarkable that Moorside Legal, having itself drafted and issued the Particulars of Claim, now seeks to suggest that the deficiencies identified in my Defence are mere “technicalities”. They are not. They are the direct result of your firm’s failure, as SRA‑regulated solicitors, to plead a coherent cause of action in compliance with CPR 16.4 and PD 16 at the point you chose to issue proceedings.
You were put on express notice in the Defence, with reference to the persuasive appeal decisions in Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan and CPMS v Akande, that claims issued in materially similar form have been struck out for failure to comply with CPR 16.4. Instead of taking the proper procedural step of applying to amend and serve compliant particulars (and accepting the risks and consequences that flow from having issued a defective claim), you are attempting to “particularise” the claim by correspondence.
That is not how civil litigation works. A solicitor’s letter is not a statement of case. It is not verified by a statement of truth. It does not amend pleadings. It cannot cure defective Particulars of Claim, and it cannot retrospectively manufacture a properly pleaded cause of action after a Defence has exposed the inadequacy of the claim as issued.
Your suggestion that there is “no prejudice” because I “clearly understand the nature of the claim” is untenable. CPR 16.4(1)(a) requires the facts relied on to be pleaded, and CPR 16.4(1)(c) requires the remedy sought to be stated. I am entitled to know the case I have to meet from your client’s pleaded statement of case, not from informal narrative offered after the event. If your client wishes to pursue this claim properly, you must follow the rules: seek the Court’s permission where required, file and serve properly pleaded amended particulars, and accept any directions the Court considers appropriate. Any attempt to proceed while treating correspondence as a substitute for compliant pleadings will be opposed.
Your email also continues to advance “driver or keeper” liability in the alternative without pleading a coherent factual and legal basis for either route. That is precisely the type of vague, hedged pleading criticised in cases of this kind and it reinforces the point that this claim was issued without proper legal analysis.
For the avoidance of doubt, I will retain this correspondence. If your client persists with this claim to allocation and beyond, I will place this email before the Court as part of my evidence bundle to demonstrate that (1) your firm was on notice of the pleaded defects and the relevant persuasive authorities, and (2) your firm nonetheless attempted to bypass the CPR pleading requirements by seeking to retrofit a case via correspondence. I will invite the Court to consider whether such conduct is unreasonable and whether case management sanctions are appropriate.
Further, if the claim is discontinued at a late stage (including after allocation, after directions, or close to any final hearing), I will rely on the history of this matter, including this correspondence, when seeking my costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g) on the basis of unreasonable conduct.
Your settlement proposal is declined. I am content for this matter to be determined by the Court.
Email service: I will accept service of documents by email only if they are served as complete, legible PDF attachments. Please confirm you will serve documents in that manner. I also note your offer to accept service at litigationteam@moorsidelegal.co.uk in PDF format.
Nothing in this email is any admission as to the alleged event, the existence of any contract, the adequacy of signage, or liability as driver or keeper. All rights are reserved.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
[Address]
[Email]
[Claim number]
When the time comes to submit your N180 Directions Questionnaire (DQ), you will submit it with a covering letter which I will provide once your are ready to submit the N180.
