Your honour I am representing the Menelaus who is the C in this case and I am here to make an application for strike

out
and summary judgement.first of all I am going to start off with the test for strike out and then talk through the reasoning, I
will then move on to deal with applying for summary judgement.

The test for strike out is under CPR 3.4(2)(a) ‘that the D discloses no reasonable grounds for defending the claim’. For the
courts to determine if the Defence and counter claim has no reasonable grounds the court will consider that the defence is
unreasonably vague incoherent and obviously ill founded.

There was an agreement between C to supply drinks to The D, Mr and Mrs Marriner and D have drafted that they accept all
contracts they entered into before 2019 were governed by the C standard terms and conditions. There are 6 disput invoice

The first two unpaid invoices were The December 2010 and August 2011 invoices which were signed by the D’s fatherThe
D’s do not deal properly with the C’s claim pertaining to the invoiced from these dates There is no reasonable ground on
which the D’s can defend these aspects of C’s claim Which Satisfies the test for striking out.

Moving on there is no explanations made by the D’s on why they do not owe the money, that they owe arising out of the
invoice dated 17 Februray 2018 hence according to cpr 16.5(5) the D has deemed to admit the allegation and has no
reasonable ground for defending the claim.

In regards to the invoices dated 18 March 2019, 4 april 2019 and 5 April 2019 The D’s defence statement claimed that
there was an oral agreement between the C and D However no indication of such oral agreement is available by the
defence.

In a similarway there is no way to specify that the terms of the extensions which was allegedly agreed

Therefore the D’s offer no credible defence to C’s allegations hence the court may strike it out.

I have 3 submissions on why the court should grant a summary judgement on the C’s favour. According to CPR Rule 24.2.
The C has a defence with real propsect of successs because:

There is no indication in which the alleged oral agreement was reached and similarly no indication of the terms of the said
agreement.

The D’s claims that they have suffered the loss of 50000 pounds which there is no indication as to how the D’s suffered that
loss.

Finally the D’s counterclaim on the basis that the C’s directors are personally liable for any loss which the D’s have suffered
is in the C’s view bad in law as it is against the companies act. Soleman case

Your honour until I can assist furher those are my submissions Thank you.