05-15-2026, 07:32 PM
@Gooner, OK, so the deadline for witness statements to be exchanged is 03 June. Treat that as a firm deadline and aim to have your own WS ready and served on time.
As this is Gladstones, expect their WS to arrive very close to the deadline, if not late. That may put you at a practical disadvantage, but it also works against them if they try to ambush you with new detail that should have been pleaded properly in the Particulars of Claim.
Because their PoC are so poor, there is a limit to how much can be answered in detail until their evidence is seen. Your WS can deal with the facts as you know them, but it will also include the point that the Particulars of Claim are generic and inadequately pleaded, contrary to CPR 16.4 and PD 16.
Where a claim is based upon an agreement, PD 16 requires proper particulars of that agreement. In Liberty Homes (Kent) Ltd v Rajakanthan & Ors [2022] EWHC 2201 (TCC), Mrs Justice Jefford DBE held that it is implicit that the Particulars of Claim must set out whether the agreement relied upon is oral, written, by conduct, or some combination. The Claimant has failed to do so.
That is important because the Claimant should not be allowed to use its witness statement to repair defective pleadings after the event. A witness statement is evidence. It is not a substitute for properly pleaded Particulars of Claim.
Once we see their WS, we can deal with anything new, misleading or unsupported in it. If necessary, a short supplementary response can be considered, especially if they serve late or introduce matters that were never properly pleaded.
The hearing is listed for 17 July. In this case, the judge has required witness statements to be prepared and served before the Claimant becomes liable for the £27 trial fee, so we will see whether they actually commit to progressing the claim.
Also, Gladstones witness statements are often written by someone employed by Gladstones rather than by anyone from the Claimant with direct knowledge of the facts. That can be pointed out to the court. Their statement may be admissible, but much of it is likely to be hearsay, template commentary, legal argument, or assertion rather than direct factual evidence.
The defective PoC should therefore remain a central issue. At the hearing, you can invite the judge to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4, or alternatively to give little weight to any attempt by the Claimant to use its WS to introduce a case that should have been pleaded properly from the outset.
As this is Gladstones, expect their WS to arrive very close to the deadline, if not late. That may put you at a practical disadvantage, but it also works against them if they try to ambush you with new detail that should have been pleaded properly in the Particulars of Claim.
Because their PoC are so poor, there is a limit to how much can be answered in detail until their evidence is seen. Your WS can deal with the facts as you know them, but it will also include the point that the Particulars of Claim are generic and inadequately pleaded, contrary to CPR 16.4 and PD 16.
Where a claim is based upon an agreement, PD 16 requires proper particulars of that agreement. In Liberty Homes (Kent) Ltd v Rajakanthan & Ors [2022] EWHC 2201 (TCC), Mrs Justice Jefford DBE held that it is implicit that the Particulars of Claim must set out whether the agreement relied upon is oral, written, by conduct, or some combination. The Claimant has failed to do so.
That is important because the Claimant should not be allowed to use its witness statement to repair defective pleadings after the event. A witness statement is evidence. It is not a substitute for properly pleaded Particulars of Claim.
Once we see their WS, we can deal with anything new, misleading or unsupported in it. If necessary, a short supplementary response can be considered, especially if they serve late or introduce matters that were never properly pleaded.
The hearing is listed for 17 July. In this case, the judge has required witness statements to be prepared and served before the Claimant becomes liable for the £27 trial fee, so we will see whether they actually commit to progressing the claim.
Also, Gladstones witness statements are often written by someone employed by Gladstones rather than by anyone from the Claimant with direct knowledge of the facts. That can be pointed out to the court. Their statement may be admissible, but much of it is likely to be hearsay, template commentary, legal argument, or assertion rather than direct factual evidence.
The defective PoC should therefore remain a central issue. At the hearing, you can invite the judge to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4, or alternatively to give little weight to any attempt by the Claimant to use its WS to introduce a case that should have been pleaded properly from the outset.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
