Patel & Anor v Patel & Ors

A bare denial of a specific allegation does not comply with Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 16.5(2), where the defendant must give reasons for the denial. The reasons should identify any different version of events relied upon. Rule 16.5 concerns responses to pleaded allegations; a request for information about matters not answering a particular allegation should generally be pursued under Part 18 instead. Where a pleading is ambiguous and does not state the defendant’s case, the court may order clarification. The court may supplement an earlier judgment before the order is drawn up where an issue was overlooked and clarification avoids further cost and delay.

The claimants applied for revised defences from the first, second and fourth defendants. The court had already ordered clarification of several pleaded allegations, but had not ruled on complaints concerning items 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7(a) of the claimants’ schedule. Following an agreed draft order, the court considered whether it had jurisdiction to address those matters in a supplemental judgment and whether the defendants’ pleadings complied with rule 16.5.

The central issues were whether bare denials required reasons, whether a failure to explain the position of certain entities constituted a breach of rule 16.5, and whether an ambiguous adopted plea required clarification or amounted to an admission.

1. Supplemental jurisdiction. The court had jurisdiction to rule on the overlooked matters before the order was drawn up. The ruling supplemented, rather than altered or corrected, the earlier judgment. The defendants who had taken no part in the application had waived advance notification of submissions about the form of order.
2. Rule 16.5(2). A bare denial of a specific allegation is inadequate where the rule requires reasons for the denial. The defendant must identify the basis of the denial and, if relying on a different version of events, the facts supporting that version. This applied to the allegations concerning ownership and control of Equity Real Estate (Aries) Limited, loans totalling £842,500, and the alleged agreement and incomplete transfer of shares.
3. Part 18 and rule 16.5. The complaint that the defendants had not explained what happened to the Run Off SPVs did not establish a breach of rule 16.5 because the matter did not purport to answer a particular allegation in the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim. It could instead support a request for further information under Part 18.
4. Rule 16.5(1) and (5). An adopted plea stating that another defendant did not plead to an allegation was ambiguous when adopted by defendants to whom the facts concerned. The proper course was to order clarification of their case. Although rule 16.5(5) might otherwise deem a failure to plead an admission, that consequence was inappropriate where the existing plea was obviously ambiguous.
5. The order was extended to items 1, 3, 5 and 7(a), but not item 2.

First-instance supplemental judgment. No appellate history was stated in the judgment.