A more recent version of these Summary Judgment Skeleton Argument notes – written by City Law School students – is available here.
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:
IN THE CENTRAL LONDON COUNTY COURT 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
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
PS805.73. 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
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Civil Advocacy Notes.