03-06-2026, 01:29 PM
@Barbudaprince, I forgot to mention that producing a short skeleton argument at this stage is sensible. It helps the judge quickly understand the structure of the defence and directs them to the relevant parts of the bundle. It does not need to be long. In small claims matters, judges generally prefer something concise that simply identifies the issues and points them to the evidence.
The skeleton should sit at the very front of the bundle, before the witness statement. It should usually be no more than two or three pages and should refer to the exhibits using the same numbering system already used (for example XX-01, XX-02 etc).
A typical structure would be as follows.
This type of document helps the judge orient themselves quickly when reviewing the bundle. It should be placed at the front of the PDF so that when the judge opens the bundle, the structure of the case is immediately clear.
Just make sure that it is structured in the same sequence as the WS so as to flow correctly. Also, remember the court header has to be on the first page.
The skeleton should sit at the very front of the bundle, before the witness statement. It should usually be no more than two or three pages and should refer to the exhibits using the same numbering system already used (for example XX-01, XX-02 etc).
A typical structure would be as follows.
Quote:SKELETON ARGUMENT OF THE DEFENDANT
1. This skeleton argument is provided to assist the Court by summarising the principal issues arising from the parties’ evidence and directing the Court to the relevant parts of the bundle.
2. The Defendant relies upon the Witness Statement and exhibits contained within the bundle and does not repeat that evidence here. This skeleton simply identifies the key issues.
Issue 1: Defective Particulars of Claim
3. The Particulars of Claim fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16 because they do not identify the contractual terms relied upon, the alleged breach, or how the sum claimed is calculated.
4. This procedural deficiency is addressed in paragraphs [X–X] of the Defendant’s Witness Statement.
5. The Defendant relies in particular on the reasoning in Liberty Homes (Kent) Limited v Rajakanthan & Others [2022] EWHC 2201 (TCC), exhibited at XX-05.
Issue 2: Failure to establish a “period of parking”
6. The Claimant’s case relies upon images of a vehicle but fails to specify any identifiable period of parking.
7. The requirement to specify a period of parking is addressed in Scott Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) [H6DP632H], relevant pages exhibited at XX-03.
Issue 3: Driver identity
8. The Claimant has produced no evidence identifying the driver.
9. The court in Vehicle Control Services v Ian Mark Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C] confirmed that driver identity cannot simply be inferred without evidence. Relevant extracts appear at XX-04.
Issue 4: Signage and contractual offer
10. The Defendant has reviewed the signage relied upon by the Claimant.
11. The signage does not create any contractual offer capable of acceptance. Photographs of the signage appear at XX-01 and XX-02.
Conclusion
12. The Claimant has failed to establish a contractual cause of action and has not produced evidence capable of supporting the claim.
13. The Defendant therefore respectfully invites the Court to dismiss the claim.
This type of document helps the judge orient themselves quickly when reviewing the bundle. It should be placed at the front of the PDF so that when the judge opens the bundle, the structure of the case is immediately clear.
Just make sure that it is structured in the same sequence as the WS so as to flow correctly. Also, remember the court header has to be on the first page.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
