Williamson: Not a proper skeleton argument
The High Court has refused to admit a skeleton argument that was three times the length it should have been, and ranged beyond the confines of what it should have done.
Deputy High Court Judge Williamson KC in the Technology & Construction Court (TCC) was ruling on an application to amend particulars of claim in a “modest” claim by TCC standards, £3m.
The first defendant’s counsel, Jason Evans-Tovey, served what were described as “written submissions” running to approximately 68 pages.
However, the various High Court guides to which the TCC guide referred were clear that skeleton arguments should be “short, no longer than 20 to 25 pages, should not take the place of oral submissions and should not set out extensively matters or law or fact”, the judge said.
It was argued that this provision applied only to applications after the first case management conference (CMC), while this was an application before it.
“It seems to me that is, with respect, an absurd reading of the rule,” Judge Williamson said.
“I put to Mr Evans-Tovey rather that would lead to the conclusion that the TCC was quite content to have unlimited skeleton arguments before the first CMC but then required them to be brief and to the point thereafter. I do not think that is the intention of the guidance.”
As an alternative, Mr Evans-Tovey argued that, although no application was made to the court for a longer skeleton argument until his email over the weekend before the trial, his submission should nonetheless be admitted.
The judge refused: “It does not seem to me that this is a proper skeleton argument within the context of the rules. Not only is it very long but it ranges far and wide across matters of fact, law and evidence. It does not seem to me that that is consistent with any of the guidance in any of the guides.
“That being so, I am not prepared to admit the skeleton argument.
“It seems to me that as I urged counsel in an email exchange over the weekend, it is necessary for them and the court to seek to identify matters which can be dealt with within the confines of a one-day hearing allowing for the fact that the court has to consider the submissions made and unless a reserves judgment is unavoidable, to give judgment today or at the end of the hearing so the parties know where they are with the pleadings.”
Leave a Comment