DISPUTE RESOLUTION (KNOWLEDGE)

Unit Workshop 3
Task 1

It is Tuesday 18 April xx18. You are a trainee solicitor at Deckard Ford LLP in
Manchester. You are part-way through your dispute resolution seat and have today
returned from a short period of annual leave.

Your supervisor, Rachael Tyrell, hands you a new file relating to an occasional client
of the firm, International Crop Sales Limited (“ICSL”), who are defending a
misrepresentation claim by an unhappy customer. The Claim Form in the
matter was received by first class post on 5 April and the Particulars of Claim
were transmitted by fax at 4.45pm on 11 April.

An Acknowledgment of Service has been filed (in time) on behalf of ICSL.

Rachael tells you that her nephew was on an unpaid work placement with her last
week and “had a go” at drafting a Defence and Counterclaim for ICSL in your
absence, using an example from another file as a precedent. She walked him
through the substantive law on misrepresentation, so that aspect should be in order,
but otherwise he was just shown the relevant parts of the White Book and left to his
own devices.

Rachael’s nephew has now left to go travelling in Southeast Asia. Rachael would
like you to finish off the draft, but as she has a lot of other work lined up for you she
first wants to get an idea of how urgent the matter is and how long it will take. She
tells you to come back to her this afternoon with notes by which you can
explain to her:

(i) Any deadlines to do with filing the Defence and/or Counterclaim; and
i. The Claim form was served on 7th April
ii. Particulars of Claim served on 12th April
b. Defence/Counterclaim: within 14 days deemed service of Particulars
of Claim  26th April
i. OR do acknowledgement of service (needs to be within 14
days deemed service of Particulars)  extends deadline by 28
days (10th May)

(ii) Whether the Defence and Counterclaim have been properly drafted,
paying particular attention to:

(a) Whether the Defence seems to address all of the allegations raised
in the Particulars of Claim; and

(b) Any technical problems with the form and content of the Defence and
Counterclaim.

714315598.docx 81 © The University of Law Limited

For point (ii), Rachael is clear that she does not want your note to set out a case
analysis. Although you must understand the case in order to make sense of the
draft, your job here is to make sure that the document fulfils its basic function as a
Defence and Counterclaim, and that it does so in accordance with the Civil
Procedure Rules.

Review the attached documents and draw up your notes. Where relevant you
should make specific reference to the Civil Procedure Rules.

© The University of Law Limited 82 714315598.docx

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No: HQ18 1111
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT REGISTRY

BETWEEN

WEST MIDLAND MILLERS LIMITED

Claimant
and

INTERNATIONAL CROP SALES LIMITED

Defendant

_______________________________________

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
_______________________________________

1. At all material times:

1.1 The Claimant was a company incorporated in England and Wales

carrying on business as a miller of wheat and as a commercial
baker and wholesale seller of bread baked from the wheat so
milled.

1.2 The Defendant was a company incorporated in England and

Wales carrying on business as an importer and seller of arable
crops.

2. On 11 January xx18 in the course of their respective businesses the

Claimant and the Defendant entered into a written contract (“the
Contract”) under which the Defendant sold to the Claimant 100,000
bushels of wheat (“the Wheat”) for the price of £3.84 per bushel,
amounting to a total price of £384,000. A copy of the Contract is
attached to these Particulars of Claim. [Not attached for the
purpose of this Task]

3. Under the terms of the Contract:

3.1 The Defendant was to deliver the Wheat to the Claimant on or

before 14 March xx18.

3.2 The Claimant would pay the price for the Wheat to the Defendant
in 2 equal instalments of £192,000. The first instalment was to
be paid on 8 February xx18 and the second instalment on 24
March xx18.

4. Pursuant to the terms of the Contract the Claimant paid the first
instalment of £192,000 to the Defendant on 8 February xx18 and the
Defendant delivered the Wheat to the Claimant on 13 March xx18.

714315598.docx 83 © The University of Law Limited

 5. Prior to the Claimant entering into the Contract, the Defendant made
a written representation to the Claimant that the Wheat was grown in
the State of Oklahoma in the United States of America (“the
Representation”). The Representation was contained in a letter
dated 4 January xx18 sent by the Defendant to the Claimant. A copy
of the letter is attached to these Particulars of Claim. [This
document was supplied with Preparatory Task 1]

6. The Defendant intended to, and did, induce the Claimant by the
Representation to enter into the Contract.

7. The Representation was false. The Wheat was not grown in the
State of Oklahoma, but was grown in the State of Kansas in the
United States of America.

8. The Representation therefore amounted to a misrepresentation,

entitling the Claimant to rescind the Contract.

9. The Claimant rescinded the Contract by an email dated 16 March

xx18, a copy of which email is attached to these Particulars of Claim.
[This document was supplied with the Preparatory Task]

10. Accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to repay to the Claimant the

first instalment paid to the Defendant under the Contract, being the
sum of £192,000.

11. The Claimant claims interest on the sum awarded under paragraph
10 above under section 35A of the Senior Courts Act 1981, at the
rate of 1.5% per annum [See note at the end of these Particulars
of Claim] from 8 February xx18 until the date of the commencement
of this action (55 days) amounting to £433.95 at that date and
accruing thereafter at a daily rate of £7.89 until judgment or earlier
payment.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS:

(a) Rescission of the Contract ;

(b) Repayment under paragraph 10 above; and

(c) Interest under paragraph 11 above.

11 April xx18 ROCHESTERS LLP

© The University of Law Limited 84 714315598.docx

 STATEMENT OF TRUTH

The Claimant believes that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim
are true.

The Claimant understands 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.

I am duly authorised by the Claimant to make this statement.

Signed: Jonah Sebastian

JONAH SEBASTIAN, Director of the Claimant
Dated: 11 April xx18
The Claimant’s solicitors are Rochesters LLP of Bronte Buildings, Newhall
Road, Birmingham B3 3AA where they will accept service of proceedings
on behalf of the Claimant (ref JE/TS/West/24.1).

To the Court and to the Defendant.

[In relation to paragraph 11 above, note that the calculation shown is based
upon:
● An assumed appropriate commercial rate of interest of 1% above the Bank
of England base rate, and
● An assumed Bank of England base rate of 0.5% as the base rate for any
actual time period may differ.]

714315598.docx 85 © The University of Law Limited

 ATTENDANCE NOTE
Ref: 5687.0001/BR/RT Date: 12/04/xx18 Units: 3 units

Rachael Tyrell attending Leon Scott of ICSL.

Leon confirmed that ICSL imports various arable crops in bulk from around the world
and sells these on in the United Kingdom and various countries across Europe. Leon
is employed by ICSL as a manager with particular responsibility for sales of wheat in
the United Kingdom.

In early January xx18 Leon was informed by a colleague that ICSL had, ready for
sale, a consignment of 100,000 bushels of Oklahoma wheat. From previous
enquiries received from WMML, Leon knew that WMML might be in the market for
wheat. Leon therefore wrote to WMML on 4th January to let it know that the wheat
was available. This is the same 4th January letter attached to the Particulars of
Claim.

Jonah Sebastian of WMML immediately responded, agreeing to the terms which are
set out at paragraph 3 of the Particulars of Claim. These terms were set out in a
written contract dated 11th January xx18. It was simply for the sale of wheat.
Nowhere in the contract was the wheat described, nor was the place of origin of the
wheat specified. The wheat was not referred to as “wheat from Oklahoma”, or even
“Oklahoma wheat” for that matter, in any part of the contract.

At first everything proceeded in accordance with the contract. WMML paid the first
instalment of £192,000 to ICSL on 8th February and ICSL delivered the entire
consignment of 100,000 bushels of wheat to WMML on 13th March. On 16th March
ICSL received the e-mail message referred to at paragraph 9 of the Particulars of
Claim (and attached to it). Leon replied to this by a letter dated 17th March. [This
document was supplied with Preparatory Task 1]

Since then nothing has happened. ICSL has refused to accept re-delivery of the
wheat to it and has not re-paid the first instalment to WMML. As far as ICSL knows
the wheat is still in WMML’s storage facility. The 24th March due date for WMML’s
second instalment of £192,000 under the contract has come and gone and no money
has been received by ICSL.

Leon said that the contract provided at clause 7.9 that interest would be payable on
late payments from and including the date each instalment was due. The rate of
interest is 10% per annum until payment takes place.

© The University of Law Limited 86 714315598.docx

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No: HQ18 1111
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT REGISTRY

BETWEEN

WEST MIDLAND MILLERS LIMITED

Claimant
and

INTERNATIONAL CROP SALES LIMITED

Defendant

_______________________________________

[draft] DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM

_______________________________________

DEFENCE
1. Unless otherwise stated, references to paragraph numbers and
defined terms in this Defence and Counterclaim are references to
corresponding paragraphs and defined terms in the Particulars of
Claim.

2. Paragraphs 2 to 4 are admitted.

3. Paragraph 5 is denied. The Letter did not represent that the Wheat
was grown in the State of Oklahoma, but rather that the Wheat was
“Oklahoma wheat”.

4. As to paragraph 6 the Defendant denies that it made the

Representation, for the reasons set out in paragraph 3 of this
Defence. Accordingly, paragraph 6 is denied. If, which is denied, the
Defendant did make the Representation, the Claimant is required to
prove that the Representation induced the Claimant to enter into the
Contract, as the Defendant has no knowledge of this matter.

5. As to paragraph 7 the Defendant denies that it made the

Representation, for the reasons set out in paragraph 3 of this
Defence. The Defendant’s letter of 4 January xx18 accurately
described the Wheat as “Oklahoma wheat”.

6. Paragraph 8 is denied. Paragraph 5 of this Defence is repeated.

The Defendant made no misrepresentation to the Claimant and the
Claimant is not entitled to rescind the Contract.

7. Paragraph 10 is denied. For the reasons set out in paragraph 6 of

this Defence, the Claimant was not entitled to rescind the Contract.
The Defendant is therefore not obliged to repay to the Claimant the
first instalment made to the Defendant under the Contract.

714315598.docx 87 © The University of Law Limited

 8. Paragraph 11 is denied for the reasons set out in paragraph 7 of this
Defence.

COUNTERCLAIM

1. Paragraph 1 above is repeated.

2. The Claimant has failed to pay the Defendant the sum of £192,000,
being the second instalment due under the Contract on 24 March
xx18, or any part of that sum.

3. The Defendant is entitled to interest on the sum of £192,000 at the

rate of 10% per annum from and including 24 March xx18 until today
(32 days) totalling £1,683.20 and continuing thereafter at the daily
rate of £52.60 until payment.

AND the Defendant counterclaims:

(a) £192,000 under paragraph 1 above;
(b) Interest under paragraph 2 above.

Dated: Deckard Ford LLP

Statement of Truth

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Counterclaim are true.
The Defendant understands 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.

I am duly authorised to sign this statement of truth on behalf of the

Defendant.

Signed: ………………………………………………..………………….
LEON SCOTT, Manager employed by the Defendant.

Dated: ………………………………

To: the Claimant and the Court

This page is intentionally blank

© The University of Law Limited 88 714315598.docx