Henderson & Jones Limited & Ors v Grange Heating Services Limited & Ors

Skeleton arguments in the Technology and Construction Court should be concise, ordinarily no longer than 20 to 25 pages, and should not replace oral submissions or extensively address factual, legal or evidential matters. The guidance applies to applications heard before the first case management conference as well as later applications. A document that is excessively long and ranges broadly across fact, law and evidence may be refused admission. In amendment applications, apparent limitation objections and irretrievable prejudice require priority. Weakness, legal difficulty or the possibility of brief disposal at trial will ordinarily be addressed through a preliminary issue, strike-out or summary-judgment application rather than refusal of the amendment, save in an exceptional case.

The claim concerned alleged defective plumbing and electrical services at a hotel, with damages said to be approximately £3 million. The first defendant served 68 pages of written submissions for an application to amend the particulars of claim. The court considered whether those submissions complied with the relevant guidance on skeleton arguments and whether they should be admitted. The judgment also gave non-binding indications concerning the proper prioritisation of issues on the amendment application.

1. The court refused to admit the first defendant’s 68-page written submissions. The document was not a proper skeleton argument because it was excessively long and ranged widely across matters of fact, law and evidence. It was inconsistent with the guidance in the TCC Guide, the King’s Bench Guide, the Chancery Guide and the Commercial Court Guide.
2. The relevant guidance was not confined to applications made after the first case management conference. That interpretation would produce the unacceptable result that skeleton arguments could be unlimited before the first case management conference but required to be concise thereafter.
3. The court emphasised that a one-day hearing should be confined to matters capable of being properly addressed within the available time, while allowing the court to consider the submissions and give judgment promptly.
4. The judge indicated, without binding effect, that amendment applications should first address any issue of irretrievable prejudice, particularly the attempted introduction of a potentially limitation-barred claim. A claim’s weakness, legal objection or possible brief disposal at trial would ordinarily not justify refusing amendment in an exceptional case; such matters might instead support an application concerning a preliminary issue, strike-out or summary judgment.
5. The supplied judgment records the refusal to admit the written submissions but does not state a final order determining the underlying amendment application.