This is an extract of our Summary Judgment Script document, which we sell as part of our Civil Advocacy Notes collection written by the top tier of City Law School students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Civil Advocacy Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
CIVIL ADVOCACY Script Madam, As you will see from paragraph 1 of my skeleton argument, the application we seek to make today is one for summary judgment, pursuant to CPR 24.2 The relevant facts for this application are laid out in paragraphs 26 of my skeleton argument. Madam, would you like a summary of the facts?
Facts: The Applicant, Mr Thomas Jarndyce was appointed as executor under the final Will of Mr Peter Davidson. The final Will states that he leaves the bulk of his estate to the Marie Curie Cancer Care Trust, a registered charity and nothing to the Respondent, Mrs Emmerson. At the time of the deceased's death, his estate included a man's platinum dress ring containing one large and 5 small sapphires, a man's gold signet ring with a black onyx inset and a lady's white gold ring set with a large solitaire diamond. The estate also included cash to the sum of PS805.73 After Mr Davidson's death, the Respondent entered the hospital and took possession of the 3 rings and the cash. She was allowed in his room as she falsely said she was Mr Davidson's cousin. The Respondent says that she is entitled to these goods as Mr Davidson promised her the rings, and in particular the 2 rings to her sons and the diamond ring to herself, as she states they were planning to get married. The present position is that the Respondent refuses to return, and remains in possession of the 3 rings and the cash.
Test: Madam, the TEST for this application, as I am sure you are familiar with is set out in the following paragraph, which is paragraph 7. Pursuant to CPR 24.2, summary judgment may be granted on the whole of a claim or on a particular issue if:
- The Defendant has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim, AND
- There is no other compelling reason why the case should be disposed of at trial. Madam, It is the Defendant's case, that the Respondent has wrongfully interfered with the goods and therefore an order for delivery of goods and for payment of any consequential damages should be made under section 3(2)(a) of Torts (Interference with Goods Act) 1977, and this will be the focus of my submissions. Submissions: This application focuses on 4 submissions, which are set out in paragraphs 1519 of my skeleton argument Firstly, The content of the will. Secondly, The alleged marriage is spurious
Thirdly, Equity will not perfect an imperfect gift and Fourthly, The Uniqueness of the rings I will address each of these in turn.
1. I will no move on to my first submission, The content of the will. This can be found in paragraph 15 of my skeleton argument. It is submitted Madam, that the Will is silent on the rings and the cash. If I can refer you to the Witness Statement of the Applicant, Mr Thomas Jarndyce. It can be found on page 18 of the bundle. In paragraph 1 it states that Mr Davidson made his final Will on the 13th November 2010 leaving the bulk of his estate to the Marie Curie Cancer Care Trust, a registered charity. There is no mention of the rings at all, and in the absence of other evidence, the rings should be classified as part of the estate and therefore belong to the Charity, as the Will states. If I can refer you Madam to paragraph 5 of the Applicant's WS. It states that the Will was signed in November 2010. And as can be seen from the previous paragraph Mr Davidson became friendly in the summer of 2008. Madam, Mr Davidson signed the will more than 2 years after he met the Respondent, and even though he was specifically asked by the executor if he wanted to leave anything to the Respondent, he refused to leave her anything at all.
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Civil Advocacy Notes.