This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

BPTC Law Notes Civil Advocacy Notes

Summary Judgment Skeleton Argument Notes

Updated Summary Judgment Skeleton Argument Notes

Civil Advocacy Notes

Civil Advocacy

Approximately 42 pages

A collection of the best BPTC notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through dozens of samples from outstanding students with the highest results in England and carefully evaluating each on accuracy, formatting, logical structure, spelling/grammar, conciseness and "wow-factor". In short, these are what we believe to be the strongest set of BPTC notes available in the UK this year. This collection of BPTC notes is fully updated for recent exams, also...

Available here

The following is a more accessible 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:

IN THE CENTRAL LONDON COUNTY COURT Claim No. CL14/2432

CHANCERY BUSINESS

BETWEEN:

MR THOMAS JARNDYCE
(Executor of the estate of the late
MR PETER ALBERT DAVIDSON) Applicant/Claimant

and

MRS PATRICIA MARTINE EMMERSON Respondent/Defendant

SKELETON ARGUMENT OF THE APPLICANT



Introduction:

  1. This is C’s application, under CPR, r.24.2, for summary judgment in an estate dispute. C says that D has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim and that there is no other compelling reason why the case should go to trial.

    The Relevant Facts:

  2. The Applicant, Mr. Thomas Jarndyce was appointed as executor under the final Will of the late Mr. Peter Davidson. The final Will states that he leaves the bulk of his estates to the Marie Curie Cancer Care Trust, a registered charity and nothing to the Respondent, Mrs Emmerson.

  3. At the time of the Mr. Davidson’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 805.73. These were found on Mr. Davidson’s possession on the hospital were he was declared dead.

  4. 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.

  5. 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 Respondent also says that Mr. Davidson promised her the cash.

  6. The Applicant says that she is not entitled to these goods in any way. The present position is that the Respondent refuses to return, and remains in possession of the 3 rings and the cash.

    The Issues:

  7. Whether under CPR, r.24.2:

    1. D has a real prospect of defending the claim on the basis that Mr. Davidson promised the 2 rings to the Respondent’s children, and promised the diamond ring to the Respondent as their engagement ring and promised the cash to the Respondent;

    2. There is any other compelling reason for there to be a trial.

The Law:

  1. Section 1 Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 (TIGA) defines wrongful interference with goods as conversion of goods (also called trover).

  2. Section 3(1) TIGA 1977 states that in proceedings for wrongful interference against a person who is in possession or in control of the goods relief may be given in accordance with this section, so far as appropriate.

  3. Section 3(2) states that the relief is either:

    1. An order for delivery of the goods, and for payment of any consequential damages, or

    2. An order for delivery of the goods, but giving the defendant the alternative of paying damages by reference to the value of the goods, together in either alternative with payment of any consequential damages, or

    3. Damages.

  4. Section 4(2) TIGA 1977 gives the court the power to make an order providing for the delivery up of any goods which are the subject matter of subsequent proceedings in the court, or as to which any question may arise in proceedings.

  5. The rule in Milroy v Lord [1862] EWHC J78 states that equity will not perfect a transfer that has not met the necessary formal constitution requirements. In addition pursuant to the case of Richards v Delbridge [1874] LR 18 Eq 11, equity will not perfect an imperfect gift. However there are exceptions to this rule:

    1. The rule in Strong v Bird [1874] LR 18 Eq 315. This rule applies to gifts where

      1. The donor intends to make an immediate gift,

      2. The donor’s intention remains unchanged until his death, and

      3. The done obtains the legal title as the executor or as administrator.

    2. Donatio Mortis Causa. According to the case of Cain v Moon [1896] 2 Q.B. 283, a gift in contemplation of death will be valid if it is:

      1. Made in contemplation of imminent death;

      2. Conditional on the...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Civil Advocacy Notes.

More Civil Advocacy Samples