Horizon Proceedings

[b789]

@Gooner The defence is not supposed to be the full story or the full evidence. Think of it as a series of “hooks” on which the later witness statement hangs.

The defence is written in the third person because it is a formal statement of the Defendant’s pleaded position. It says, in broad terms, what is denied, what is not admitted, and what legal or procedural issues are being relied upon.

The witness statement is different. It is written in the first person because it is your evidence. It should say things like “I received…”, “I saw…”, “I did not receive…”, “The signs were…”, “The Claimant has not shown…”, and so on.

So the defence sets out the issues: defective PoC, no properly pleaded contract, lack of clarity, poor signage, no clear cause of action, and reliance on cases such as CEL v Chan and CPMS v Akande.

The WS then puts factual flesh on those bones. It explains what actually happened, refers to the documents, exhibits the evidence, and shows why the Claimant still has not proved its case.

So no, the WS should not simply repeat the defence. It should build on it. The defence gives the court the legal and procedural hooks; the WS is where your own factual evidence is hung from those hooks.