Free Traffic Legal Advice

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No: [Claim Number]

BETWEEN:

CP Plus Ltd t/a GroupNexus

Claimant

- and -

[Defendant's Full Name]

Defendant

---

DEFENCE

Preliminary matter

1. The Defendant respectfully submits that the Particulars of Claim (PoC) served by the Claimant are defective and fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). The Defendant requests that the court consider this matter as a preliminary issue and strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a), as the PoC disclose no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim.

2. In particular, the PoC:

(i) Fail to provide a concise statement of the facts upon which the Claimant relies.

(ii) Do not specify the exact contractual terms allegedly breached.

(iii) Lack sufficient detail to enable the Defendant to understand the case and provide a full response.

3. The Defendant relies on two recent persuasive appeal cases:

(i) In CEL v Chan 2023 [E7GM9W44], the court struck out the claim due to inadequate PoC that failed to meet the requirements of CPR 16.4. (See attached Exhibit A)

(ii) Similarly, in CPMS v Akande 2024 [K0DP5J30], the claim was struck out due to vague and insufficient PoC, which did not provide enough information for the Defendant to respond appropriately. (See attached Exhibit B)

4. In light of these deficiencies, the Defendant respectfully submits that the claim should be struck out for failing to meet the necessary legal standards.

5. Alternatively, should the court not agree to strike out the claim, the Defendant requests that the Claimant be ordered to provide amended or further Particulars of Claim that comply with CPR 16.4, as detailed in the attached draft order referred to in paragraph 9.

Defendants Understanding of the Claim

6. The Defendant denies any liability for this claim.

7. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR 16.4.

8. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:

(a) The Particulars of Claim fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a), lacking specific terms allegedly breached, the signage locations, or details of the breach. This prevents the Defendant from properly pleading a defence, and the claim should be struck out under CPR 3.4. The Defendant cites CEL v Chan 2023 [E7GM9W44] and CPMS v Akande 2024 [K0DP5J30], where similarly vague claims were struck out. Should the court not strike out the claim, the Defendant refers to the draft order in paragraph 4.

(b) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16(7.5);

(c) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;

(d) The PoC do not set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has
breached the contract (or contracts);

(e) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;

(f) The PoC do not state exactly how the claim for statutory interest is calculated;

(g) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;

(h) The PoC states that the Claimant is suing the defendant as the driver or the keeper. The claimant obviously knows whether the defendant is being sued as the driver or the keeper and should not be permitted to plead alternative causes of action.

9. The Defendant has attached to this defence a copy of an order made at another court which the allocating judge ought to make at this stage so that the Defendant can then know and understand the case which he/she/it faces and can then respond properly to the claim.

Statement of truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed:


Date:

would you mind confirming the best way to mark the transcripts as exhibit a and b.