SQE1 Dispute Resolution

Dispute Resolution · Pre-action conduct

Brightwater Joinery Ltd is owed £38,000 under an unpaid invoice by Calder Housing Ltd. No pre-action protocol covers this type of dispute. The managing director of Brightwater tells you, a trainee solicitor, that Calder will only delay, so he wants to issue a claim form today without writing first. You are asked what the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct expects. Which of the following statements is most accurate?

1. Brightwater may issue at once because the Practice Direction applies only where a specific pre-action protocol also applies
2. Brightwater must wait three months after its letter before issuing, because that is the fixed minimum response period
3. Brightwater must complete mediation before issue, and the court will strike out any claim issued without it
4. Brightwater should write to Calder with concise details of the claim and allow a reasonable time to respond, and unreasonable non-compliance can lead to costs and interest sanctions
5. Brightwater risks having its claim barred by limitation if it does not send a letter before claim

Show answer and explanation

Answer: D. The Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols applies where no specific protocol covers the dispute. Para 6 expects the claimant to write with concise details of the claim and the defendant to respond within a reasonable time, which is 14 days in a straightforward case and no more than 3 months in a very complex one. The parties should also consider ADR. Under paras 13 to 16 the court may take non-compliance into account and make orders about costs, interest and stays. Here a £38,000 invoice debt is straightforward, so a short response period suits. Issuing at once because the client expects delay is the tempting but wrong approach: non-compliance is punished in costs, not by automatic strike out.

Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, paras 6, 8 to 11 and 13 to 16

Report a problem with this question

Dispute Resolution · Limitation

Mrs Okafor suffered gradual hearing loss while working at a factory. On 12 January 2025 an audiologist told her the loss was probably caused by years of exposure to loud machinery. She was aware of her symptoms long before, but assume she could not reasonably have known earlier that they were linked to her work. She instructs your firm on 9 November 2026 to claim damages for negligence against the former employer. Ignore any argument on discretion. By when must a claim be issued to be in time?

1. 12 January 2031, being six years from the date of the audiologist's report
2. 12 January 2028, being three years from the date on which she first knew that the injury was significant and attributable to the employer's act or omission
3. 9 November 2029, being three years from the date she instructed your firm
4. The date three years after her symptoms first appeared, so the claim is probably already out of time
5. 12 January 2037, being twelve years from the audiologist's report

Show answer and explanation

Answer: B. For personal injury the primary period is three years from the date the cause of action accrued or, if later, the date of knowledge (Limitation Act 1980, s 11(4)). Under s 14 the date of knowledge is when the claimant first knew the injury was significant, was attributable to the act or omission alleged, and who the defendant was. On the assumed facts there is no earlier constructive knowledge under s 14(3), and Mrs Okafor only learned of attribution to the employer on 12 January 2025, so the three years end on 12 January 2028. The tempting wrong answer is to count from when the symptoms began. That ignores the later date of knowledge. Section 33 gives the court a discretion to disapply the period, but the question tells you to ignore it.

Limitation Act 1980, ss 11 and 14

Report a problem with this question

Dispute Resolution · Service of the claim form

A claim form was issued by the county court on 17 September 2026. The claimant's solicitor posted it by first class post to the defendant's usual residence on 17 January 2027, a Sunday. The defendant's solicitor argues that the claim form was served out of time, because it will be deemed served on 19 January, which is after the four-month period. Is the argument correct?

1. Yes, because the claim form must be deemed served, not merely posted, within four months of issue
2. Yes, because a step taken on a Sunday is invalid and posting must be done on a business day
3. No, because the claim form remains valid for six months and no step is required in the first four
4. No, because the claimant need only complete the step required for service before midnight on the calendar day four months after issue, and posting on 17 January does that
5. No, because the claimant can serve at any time provided the particulars of claim are served within 14 days

Show answer and explanation

Answer: D. A claim form must be served within four months of issue, but r 7.5(1) tests this by reference to the step taken: before 12 midnight on the calendar day four months after issue, the claimant must complete the relevant step, such as posting by first class post. Four months after 17 September is 17 January, so posting that day satisfies r 7.5. Deemed service under r 6.14 (the second business day after the step) is used to calculate the defendant's time to respond, not to test validity. The defendant's argument confuses the two dates. If the step had been missed, the claimant would need an extension under r 7.6, which is hard to obtain after expiry.

CPR r 7.5(1); CPR r 6.14; CPR r 7.6

Report a problem with this question

Dispute Resolution · Time limits for response

A claimant posted the claim form and particulars of claim together by first class post on Monday 5 October 2026. Both were deemed served as provided in the CPR. The defendant filed an acknowledgment of service on 12 October. Assume no bank holidays fall in the period and that no extension is agreed. What is the last day for the defendant to file a defence?

1. Wednesday 21 October 2026
2. Monday 9 November 2026
3. Monday 2 November 2026
4. Wednesday 4 November 2026
5. Wednesday 18 November 2026

Show answer and explanation

Answer: D. Where particulars of claim are served with the claim form, the claim form is deemed served on the second business day after the step is taken (CPR r 6.14), here Wednesday 7 October. The defence is due 14 days after service of the particulars, or 28 days after service if the defendant has filed an acknowledgment of service (r 15.4(1)). The defendant did acknowledge service, so the 28 days run from 7 October and end on Wednesday 4 November. The tempting wrong choice, 21 October, forgets the longer period that an acknowledgment of service gives. Counting from the date of posting is also wrong, because deemed service controls.

CPR r 6.14; CPR r 15.4(1)

Report a problem with this question

Dispute Resolution · Extending time by agreement

You act for Dalton Logistics Ltd, the defendant to a £60,000 contract claim. The defence is due on 4 December. You need time to obtain documents from a client based overseas. You ask the claimant's solicitor, who agrees in an email to a 40-day extension. You propose to rely on that agreement and do nothing else. Which of the following is the correct position?

1. The agreement is effective for 40 days because the parties control time limits unless the court has fixed them
2. The parties may agree an extension of no more than 28 days and the defendant must notify the court in writing, so a longer period needs a court order
3. The agreement is effective for 28 days and the court need not be told, because it is a private arrangement
4. The agreement has no effect at all, so only the court can extend time for filing a defence
5. The agreement is effective for 40 days if the claimant has not requested default judgment by then

Show answer and explanation

Answer: B. CPR r 15.5 allows the parties to agree that the time for filing a defence is extended by up to 28 days, and the defendant must notify the court in writing of the agreement. A longer period cannot be agreed. Dalton must therefore either settle for a 28-day extension or apply under Part 23 for an order. Relying on the 40-day email is dangerous: from day 29 the defendant would be in default and the claimant could request default judgment.

CPR r 15.5

Report a problem with this question

Dispute Resolution · Default judgment

The defendant's defence was due on 3 November. It was filed late, on 9 November. On 10 November, the claimant's clerk, unaware of the filing, requested judgment in default of defence and the court entered judgment for £22,000. The defendant's solicitor applies to set the judgment aside. Which of the following describes how the court must approach the application?

1. It may set the judgment aside only if the defendant shows a real prospect of successfully defending the claim
2. It may set it aside only if the defendant also explains the delay and pays the claimant's costs first
3. It must set the judgment aside, because it was wrongly entered once a defence had been filed before the request was made
4. It must refuse, because the defence was filed after the deadline and the claimant was entitled to judgment
5. It must refuse, because the application was not made within 14 days of the judgment

Show answer and explanation

Answer: C. Default judgment under Part 12 is available only if the defendant has not filed a defence by the deadline when the request is made (r 12.3(2)). A defence filed late but before the request defeats the entitlement. Under r 13.2 the court must set aside a judgment that was wrongly entered, for example because the r 12.3 conditions were not met. The defendant need not show a real prospect of defending. That is the test in r 13.3 for judgments that were correctly entered, where the court has a discretion. The tempting wrong answer treats lateness as decisive. It is not, because only the position at the date of the request counts.

CPR r 12.3(2); CPR r 13.2; CPR r 13.3

Report a problem with this question

Dispute Resolution · Setting aside default judgment

Default judgment was properly entered against Ember Print Ltd for £45,000 after it did not respond to a claim. The sole director was seriously ill and the claim form lay unopened. Ember applies two weeks after learning of the judgment and produces a draft defence, with supporting documents, that shows a seemingly strong set-off. Which of the following best states the test the court will apply?

1. Whether the failure to respond was excusable and caused by circumstances beyond Ember's control
2. Whether Ember has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim or some other good reason, taking into account whether it applied promptly
3. Whether the claimant would suffer irreparable prejudice if the judgment were set aside
4. Whether Ember can prove its defence on the balance of probabilities at this stage
5. Whether the court is satisfied the judgment was wrongly entered under the conditions in Part 12

Show answer and explanation

Answer: B. Where default judgment was correctly entered, r 13.3(1) gives the court a discretion to set it aside if the defendant has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim or if it appears to the court that there is some other good reason. Under r 13.3(2) the court must have regard to whether the person applied promptly. Ember applied promptly and has a documented set-off, so the application looks strong. The director's illness supports the case but does not replace the test. The tempting wrong answer is to treat excuse as the central question. A defendant can succeed on merits alone, provided it acts promptly.

CPR r 13.3(1) and (2)

Report a problem with this question

Dispute Resolution · Summary judgment

Tarn Estates Ltd sues a tenant for £18,500 rent arrears. The tenant filed a defence saying only that rent is not owed, with no explanation and no documents. Tarn applies for summary judgment with a witness statement exhibiting the lease, rent demands and bank statements. The tenant relies on the bare defence. Which statement best describes the test the court applies?

1. Whether the court believes Tarn is more likely than not to win after weighing the evidence as at trial
2. Whether the defence discloses reasonable grounds, which it does because a denial is always a defence
3. Whether Tarn proves its claim beyond reasonable doubt on the documents produced
4. Whether the claim is worth more than £10,000, because summary judgment is for fast track claims only
5. Whether the tenant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim and there is no other compelling reason for a trial

Show answer and explanation

Answer: E. On an application under Part 24, the court may give summary judgment if the respondent has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim or issue, or of successfully defending it, and there is no other compelling reason why the case should be disposed of at trial (r 24.3). A real prospect means realistic rather than fanciful. The court avoids a mini-trial on conflicting evidence, but need not accept assertions that are contradicted by contemporary documents or are unsupported. A bare denial against leases, demands and bank statements is likely to be fanciful. The tempting wrong answer is the balance of probabilities, which asks the court to weigh evidence it should not weigh at this stage.

CPR r 24.3

Report a problem with this question

Dispute Resolution · Part 20 claims

You act for a defendant building firm sued by a homeowner for defective work. The firm filed its defence three weeks ago. It now believes a subcontractor caused the defects and wants to claim a contribution from the subcontractor, who is not a party. Which of the following statements is correct about starting that claim?

1. The firm needs no permission because a defendant has an automatic right to bring in a contribution claim
2. The firm needs the court's permission, because the Part 20 claim against a non-party is made after the defence was filed
3. The firm cannot bring the claim and must sue the subcontractor in separate proceedings
4. The firm needs the homeowner's written consent, because a new party affects the claimant
5. The firm needs permission only if the subcontractor is outside England and Wales

Show answer and explanation

Answer: B. A Part 20 claim is any claim other than the claimant's claim, including a claim for contribution or indemnity against a non-party. Under CPR r 20.7 the defendant may make it without permission if it is issued before or at the same time as the defence is filed. After that point, permission is required. The firm filed its defence three weeks ago, so it must apply, and the application will be judged against the overriding objective and the effect on the trial timetable. The tempting wrong answer assumes that a contribution claim is a matter of right. That is true only within the early window. A counterclaim has its own similar rule in r 20.4.

CPR r 20.7; CPR r 20.4

Report a problem with this question

Dispute Resolution · Allocation to tracks

Your client, Pennine Fabrication Ltd, is suing a supplier for £70,000 for breach of a supply contract. The facts are not complex, the trial is likely to last two days, and each side expects to call one expert on engineering. The claim form has just been issued in the county court and a directions questionnaire is to be filed. Under the CPR as amended in October 2023, which track is the claim normally suited to?

1. The intermediate track, because the claim is worth more than £25,000 and up to £100,000, is not complex and has a short trial with limited expert evidence
2. The fast track, because contract claims of this kind are always allocated there regardless of value
3. The small claims track, because the facts are straightforward and the trial is short
4. The multi-track, because any claim above £25,000 must be allocated there
5. The multi-track, because the engineering expert evidence will be given orally by both sides

Show answer and explanation

Answer: A. Part 26 sets out the tracks. The small claims track is generally for claims of £10,000 or less. The fast track is for claims over £10,000 up to £25,000. For claims issued on or after 1 October 2023, the intermediate track covers claims worth over £25,000 and up to £100,000 where the trial will last no more than three days, oral expert evidence is limited (no more than two experts giving oral evidence for each party), and the claim is not complex enough for the multi-track. Pennine's claim fits those criteria. Fixed recoverable costs apply to claims on the fast and intermediate tracks. The tempting multi-track answer reflects the pre-October 2023 position.

CPR Part 26 (as amended from 1 October 2023); CPR Part 45

Report a problem with this question

Dispute Resolution · Choice of court

Mr Rahman runs a small bakery and is owed £60,000 by a customer under a supply contract. There is no real dispute about the facts, no unusual legal point, and the claim has no public importance. Mr Rahman believes that the High Court sounds more impressive and says that he wants to issue there. He asks you which court is appropriate. What is your best advice?

1. He may choose either court freely, because the High Court has unlimited jurisdiction over contract claims
2. The claim must be started in the High Court, because any contract claim over £50,000 belongs there
3. The claim should be started in the Magistrates' Court, because it concerns a trade debt
4. The claim should be started in the Business and Property Courts, because it is a commercial dispute
5. The claim should be started in the county court, because a claim of this value that is not complex or important does not belong in the High Court

Show answer and explanation

Answer: E. The county court has jurisdiction over most civil claims. Under the High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction Order 1991, art 4A, and PD 7A para 2, a claim for money worth less than £100,000 may not normally be started in the High Court, unless an enactment requires it or the claimant reasonably believes the matter should be heard by a High Court judge because of its financial value, its complexity or its public importance. A £60,000 debt claim with no such features should be issued in the county court. If wrongly issued in the High Court, the claim may be transferred and the claimant may face costs consequences. Prestige is not a reason.

High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction Order 1991 (SI 1991/724), art 4A; CPR PD 7A, para 2

Report a problem with this question

Dispute Resolution · Service out of the jurisdiction

Your client, Norfolk Seafoods Ltd, an English company, suffered losses in England when a Danish haulier negligently damaged a refrigerated cargo while it was in a warehouse in Kent. The haulier has no assets or office in England and has not agreed to accept service. Norfolk wants to sue the haulier in the High Court. Which of the following sets out what Norfolk must show to obtain permission to serve the claim form out of the jurisdiction?

1. Only that the Danish company has been sent a letter before claim and has failed to reply within 14 days
2. Only that the loss exceeds £100,000, because high-value claims can always be served abroad
3. A good arguable case that the claim falls within a jurisdiction gateway, a serious issue to be tried, and that England is clearly the appropriate forum
4. That the Danish company's courts would refuse to hear the claim and that Danish law is the same as English law
5. That the haulier has an English bank account which could be frozen to satisfy any judgment

Show answer and explanation

Answer: C. Permission is generally needed to serve a claim form outside England and Wales. The applicant must satisfy three requirements: (1) a good arguable case that the claim falls within one of the gateways in PD 6B (here, tort claims where damage was sustained in the jurisdiction, para 3.1(9)); (2) a serious issue to be tried, meaning a real prospect of success; and (3) that England is the proper place in which to bring the claim, the test in Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460, so that England is clearly the appropriate forum (CPR r 6.37(1)(b) and (3)). A demand letter or the size of the loss does not satisfy any of these limbs. Norfolk is likely to succeed on the facts.

CPR r 6.36 and r 6.37; CPR PD 6B, para 3.1(9); Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460

Report a problem with this question

Dispute Resolution · Relief from sanctions

A directions order required both parties to exchange witness statements by 1 September. Your client, the claimant, served its statements three days late because of a failure in its solicitor's document system. The order says nothing about the consequences. The defendant has applied to prevent the claimant from relying on the statements. The trial is nine months away and nothing in the timetable has moved. Which of the following best describes how the court will approach the matter?

1. It will refuse relief automatically, because any breach of a court order is serious and unexcused delay cannot be forgiven
2. It will grant relief automatically, because a delay of three days is trivial and has no effect on the trial date
3. It will grant relief only if the claimant shows a real prospect of winning at trial, since sanctions go to the merits
4. It will ask only whether the defendant has suffered prejudice, since that is the sole factor in r 3.9
5. It will ask how serious the breach was, why it happened, and weigh all the circumstances including the need for efficient litigation and compliance with orders

Show answer and explanation

Answer: E. Late service of a witness statement carries an implied sanction: the witness may not be called without permission (CPR r 32.10). The approach in Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906, applying CPR r 3.9, has three stages. First, identify the seriousness or significance of the breach. If it is neither serious nor significant, relief is usually granted. Second, find why the default occurred. Third, evaluate all the circumstances, giving particular weight to the need for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost, and to enforce compliance with rules, practice directions and orders. A three-day delay with no effect on a trial nine months away is likely to be minor, so relief would probably be granted. The tempting error is to treat any breach as fatal or any short delay as automatically excusable.

CPR r 3.9; Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906; CPR r 32.10

Report a problem with this question

Dispute Resolution · Professional conduct: statements of case

You are drafting particulars of claim for a client, Mr Vance, who says a delivery was made on Tuesday 4 March. His own emails in your file show the delivery was made on Friday 7 March, which is after the contract deadline and weakens his case. Mr Vance says the opponent has no records so nobody will know, and tells you to plead Tuesday. What should you do?

1. Plead Tuesday 4 March because instructions from the client must be followed unless the matter is criminal
2. Plead Tuesday 4 March but ask Mr Vance, not you, to sign the statement of truth to shift responsibility
3. Refuse to plead a date you know is wrong, explain that doing so would mislead the court, and stop acting if he insists
4. Plead the date vaguely as 'early March' so the pleading is not strictly false and Mr Vance is satisfied
5. Plead Friday 7 March and report Mr Vance to the SRA immediately for attempting to deceive the court

Show answer and explanation

Answer: C. A solicitor must not mislead or attempt to mislead the court or others, whether by acts or omissions (SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, para 1.4). A solicitor may make only assertions that are properly arguable (para 2.4), and the Principles require honesty and upholding the proper administration of justice. A statement of truth is verified by the party (CPR r 22.1), and a false statement made without an honest belief in its truth may be punished as contempt (CPR r 32.14). Pleading a date you know to be wrong would breach the Code. You should advise Mr Vance of the risks and, if he insists, cease to act. A deliberately vague plea is the tempting but equally improper compromise.

SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, paras 1.4 and 2.4; SRA Principles 2019, Principles 1, 4 and 5; CPR r 22.1 and r 32.14

Report a problem with this question

Dispute Resolution · Interim injunctions

Your client, Sutton Analytics Ltd, learns that an ex-employee has set up a rival firm and is using Sutton's confidential client list to approach customers. Sutton's claim for breach of confidence is arguable but disputed. Sutton applies on notice for an interim injunction until trial. Which of the following best states the approach the court will take?

1. It will ask whether there is a serious issue to be tried, then whether damages would be adequate, then where the balance of convenience lies, and will require a cross-undertaking in damages
2. It will first decide whether Sutton is more likely than not to win at trial and refuse relief if it is not
3. It will grant an injunction automatically once breach of confidence is arguable, because confidence is an equitable right
4. It will refuse because damages are always an adequate remedy for commercial wrongs
5. It will grant the order without requiring any undertaking from Sutton to compensate the ex-employee if the claim fails

Show answer and explanation

Answer: A. The court has power to grant interim injunctions under CPR Part 25 and the Senior Courts Act 1981, s 37(1). The guidelines in American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396 are: is there a serious question to be tried (not a frivolous or vexatious claim)? If so, would damages be an adequate remedy for the claimant and could the defendant pay them? If not, where does the balance of convenience lie, with a leaning to preserving the status quo? The applicant is ordinarily required to give a cross-undertaking in damages in case the injunction is later found to have been wrongly granted. Candidates often wrongly require a better than even chance of success, which is not the American Cyanamid threshold.

American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396; Senior Courts Act 1981, s 37(1); CPR Part 25

Report a problem with this question

Dispute Resolution · Freezing injunctions: professional conduct

You act for a claimant seeking a freezing injunction against a former business partner, to be applied for without notice because of urgency. In your file is a recent bank statement that suggests the partner has paid back part of the debt and has kept substantial assets in England. This weakens the claim of a risk that he will dissipate assets. Your client says to leave it out because the judge only needs to see the strong evidence. What is the correct position?

1. You need only disclose adverse facts that the defendant could not answer, because other facts are for the return date
2. You may omit the bank statement, because it is the defendant's job to put his own evidence before the court
3. You must disclose all material facts, including those adverse to the client, and failing to do so could lead to the order being discharged and costs sanctions
4. You may omit it if you believe in good faith that the statement is irrelevant to the issue of dissipation
5. You must disclose it, but only to your supervising partner and not to the court

Show answer and explanation

Answer: C. A freezing injunction under the Senior Courts Act 1981, s 37 requires a good arguable case, a real risk of dissipation, and that the order be just and convenient. Because the defendant is absent, the applicant has a duty of full and frank disclosure of all material facts, including those against the application (Brink's-MAT Ltd v Elcombe [1988] 1 WLR 1350). A solicitor must not mislead the court by act or omission (SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, para 1.4), and must uphold the proper administration of justice (Principle 1). Omitting a bank statement that undermines the risk of dissipation breaches those duties and risks discharge of the order. The client's wish to leave it out is not a defence. You should advise on the duty and, if refused, consider ceasing to act.

SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, para 1.4; Senior Courts Act 1981, s 37; Brink's-MAT Ltd v Elcombe [1988] 1 WLR 1350

Report a problem with this question

Dispute Resolution · Interim payments

Ms Allen was injured in a car crash. The insurer of the other driver has admitted liability in full but the value of her claim is disputed. Your evidence shows the likely final award is about £90,000, including future care. Ms Allen needs money now for adaptations and asks you to apply for an interim payment of £85,000. What is the likely position?

1. The court cannot order any interim payment until damages are assessed, since the amount is unknown
2. The court must order the full £85,000 because liability is admitted and the figure is within the likely award
3. The court may order an interim payment only if Ms Allen has first accepted a Part 36 offer
4. The court may order an interim payment only if the insurer consents, since payment is a matter of agreement
5. The court has power to order an interim payment because liability is admitted, but it must not order more than a reasonable proportion of the likely final judgment

Show answer and explanation

Answer: E. A claimant may apply for an interim payment under CPR Part 25, supported by evidence. One ground on which the court may order an interim payment is that the defendant has admitted liability to pay damages. The court must not order more than a reasonable proportion of the likely amount of the final judgment, taking into account contributory negligence and any set-off or counterclaim. That leaves a margin for error in the estimate, so a payment close to the full £90,000 is unlikely. Ms Allen should expect a lower sum than £85,000. A candidate who selects full payment overlooks the 'reasonable proportion' safeguard.

CPR Part 25 (interim payments)

Report a problem with this question

Dispute Resolution · Security for costs

Your client, Rowan Foods Ltd, is the defendant to a £400,000 claim by Greenfield Ventures Ltd, an English company. Rowan's research shows that Greenfield has net liabilities in its latest accounts and no significant assets. Rowan wants the court to order Greenfield to provide security for its costs of defending. Which of the following is correct?

1. The court must order security because the claimant is a company with net liabilities, and no further enquiry is needed
2. The court cannot order security because Greenfield is an English company and not resident outside the jurisdiction
3. The court may order security only if Rowan shows that Greenfield's claim has no real prospect of success
4. The court may order security if it is satisfied that it is just to do so and there is reason to believe Greenfield will be unable to pay Rowan's costs if ordered
5. The court may order security only after the trial has ended and costs have been assessed

Show answer and explanation

Answer: D. Security for costs is governed by CPR Part 25. The court may make an order if (a) it is satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances, that it is just to do so, and (b) one or more of the listed conditions applies. One condition is that the claimant is a company or other body and there is reason to believe that it will be unable to pay the defendant's costs if ordered to do so. Net liabilities in recent accounts are typical evidence. The court still has a discretion and will consider, for example, whether the application is oppressive or would stifle a genuine claim. A candidate who thinks it is automatic ignores the first limb of the test.

CPR Part 25 (security for costs)

Report a problem with this question

Dispute Resolution · Amendment and limitation

Cobham Builders Ltd issued a claim in March 2026 against a roofing firm for breach of contract, relying on defective work completed in October 2020. In November 2026, after the limitation period for a negligence claim has expired (assume no extension applies), Cobham asks the court for permission to add an alternative claim in negligence based on exactly the same defective roof and the same facts. What is the likely outcome?

1. The court cannot allow the amendment, because no new cause of action may ever be added after limitation has expired
2. The court must allow the amendment, because amendments before trial are an automatic right of the claimant
3. The court may allow the amendment, because the new claim arises out of substantially the same facts as are already in issue in the existing claim
4. The court may allow it only if the roofing firm consents, because the defendant's agreement is needed after expiry
5. The court may allow it only if the negligence claim has a different factual basis from the contract claim

Show answer and explanation

Answer: C. A new claim made by amendment after the end of the limitation period is treated as made on the date proceedings began (Limitation Act 1980, s 35(1)), but the court may allow it only in the circumstances in s 35(3) to (5) and CPR r 17.4(2): the new claim must arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as are already in issue on a claim already made in the proceedings. Cobham's negligence claim relies on the same defective roof and facts, so the court may allow it in the exercise of its discretion. The tempting wrong view is that expiry bars any amendment. That is too absolute. Adding a new party is treated more strictly.

Limitation Act 1980, s 35; CPR r 17.4(2)

Report a problem with this question

Dispute Resolution · Disclosure

You act for Lowther Hotels Ltd, the defendant in a £120,000 county court claim for breach of a catering contract. The case is on the multi-track and the court has ordered standard disclosure. The finance director has an email, not yet seen by the claimant, in which he admits the hotel was late with two payments. The email harms Lowther's defence. He asks whether it has to be disclosed. What should you advise?

1. No. Standard disclosure covers only documents on which Lowther will rely at trial, so the email can be withheld
2. No. Only documents that support the claimant's case must be disclosed, and this email merely harms Lowther
3. Yes. Standard disclosure covers documents that adversely affect the party's own case as well as those it relies on, so the email must be disclosed unless privileged
4. Yes, but only if the claimant makes a specific request for it before the end of the disclosure period
5. Yes, but only the part of the email dealing with the late payments, with other parts redacted for commercial sensitivity

Show answer and explanation

Answer: C. Standard disclosure under CPR r 31.6 requires a party to disclose (a) the documents on which it relies, and the documents that (b) adversely affect its own case, (c) adversely affect another party's case, or (d) support another party's case, plus any documents required by a practice direction. The duty is limited to documents that are or have been in the party's control (r 31.8) and continues until the end of the case (r 31.11). The email adversely affects Lowther's case, so it must be listed unless privileged. Redacting it for sensitivity is not a recognised ground. A tempting error is to think that disclosure is limited to the documents a party wants to use.

CPR r 31.6; CPR r 31.8; CPR r 31.11

Report a problem with this question