Need stronger Defence for court claim from ex-client, possibly 'trying it on'

[getserious]

I am defending a county court claim, and
need to know my possible options - or need
to file a better Defence...

£10k-plus was paid to me by a client - now
the claimant - in 2017 for business coaching
advice. This client did not really follow-through
on my advice/process - did not take any action -
and has now made a claim, implying that I mis-sold
my service, etc.

Prior to this claim, I heard nothing from them for
about 3 years - so they may just be trying it on...

In July, an Order was made by a Judge at a
County Court - for the claimant to file an amended
claim. The initial particulars of claim was struck out
("not comply with CPR 16.4 and do not disclose
any reasonable basis for bringing the claim")

The claimant's solicitor have recently sent me
an Amended particulars of claim - which seem
to ramble somewhat...

Also, the claimant's solicitor is pressing for
my home address. The court already has this
address. The claimant so far has served docs
via email. Can I provide a business address -
or respond by email only?

Their claim is focused too much on my PROPOSAL
sent in March 2017. This was NOT an agreement
nor a contract...

Looks like my likely option is to file a stronger
Amended Defence - along with a request to strike out
this claim...

Any other ideas which may be helpful here?

[ostell]

If they are claiming against the business then give them the business address.

[efpom]

In order to obtain any sensible input here, it is advisable to post up a redacted copy of the amended POC. Presumably, you have been permission to amend your defence, with a deadline - what is that deadline?

Is the claim against you as a sole trader or a limited company?

[getserious]

Thanks, Efpom...

I need to file amended Defence by 31 August - as a sole trader.

Here is claimant's amended POC:

1. The Claimant claims return of monies given by her to the Defendant regarding an
agreement between them. The Claim is based on both a written Proposal document
provided by the Defendant, and email representations made by the Defendant.

2. Pursuant to CPR 16.7.3 (1) the Claimant attaches a copy of the said Proposal in
exhibit marked ‘A’. In so far as CPR 16.7.5 and 16.8.2 (3) (4) and (7) may apply, the
Claimant attaches in exhibit marked ‘B’ a table of emails between the Parties with
the Claimant’s comments as to the Defendant’s breaches, failings and
misrepresentations.

3. Regarding paragraph 1 of the Defence, the reason why the Defendant has received
an email from the Court is that he has refused to provide the Claimant with his
2 address in a presumed attempt to avoid service of Court process which inter alia
explains the delay in issuing proceedings (fully addressed in paragraph 9 below).

4. Regarding paragraph 3 of the Defence, the Defendant is fully aware of the Claimant
and the type of agreement in this matter and reference is made to exhibit ‘A’.

5. In reference to this document the Claimant would not define or describe the
agreement as a ‘business coaching agreement’ but a full business development and
promotional agreement

6. Regarding paragraph 5 of the Defence, the Claimant emphatically denies that a full
business service was provided and will say, and provide full evidence upon
Discovery, that the Defendant was woefully inexperienced in the luxury yacht
business sector. The Claimant now understands that she was a victim of what can
only be described as a scam perpetrated by the Defendant. The Claimant will rely
upon the following breaches of Agreement by the Defendant.

6.1 The Defendant discussed the Claimant’s aims and goals and experience in her
proposed new business venture of becoming a broker/selling luxury yachts
focusing on the ‘’£1 - 50 million per unit sector’’ (in reference to the Defendant’s
Proposal) but the Defendant failed to recognise and advice the Claimant that,
despite her passion in this venture, she had absolutely no experience or business
connections in this niche sector.

6.2 The Claimant will say that this was intentional as the Defendant was only
interested in receiving £13k for his services which he would have reasonably
known was doomed to fail because:

6.3 The Defendant had no experience or understanding of this type of industry
which is highly lucrative and thereby extremely difficult to penetrate,
particularly as the potential customers are high net worth individuals

6.4 The Defendant had no connections or contacts in this sector which may have
assisted the Claimant in making inroads into her new venture.

6.5 The Defendant naively proposed the usual business networking approaches of
launching a new website and social media campaigns such as Facebook, LinkedIn
etc, not knowing that this approach would fail because of 6.3

6.6 The Claimant puts the Defendant to strict proof the attached Proposal is indeed
a tailor made plan as it appears to be a standard template with words altered or
amended to fit the Claimant’s business. The proposal is generic and lacks specific
detail.

6.7 The Claimant will say this (and other proposal points) are meaningless and
shows reliance upon jargonism as opposed to a precise detailed action plan.

6.8 The Claimant will say that the Defendant was out of his depth in this matter,
should have advised and both and he and the Claimant did not have any
experience in this sector, should not have entered into any agreement and
should not have taken her money when he clearly knew he would not be able to
deliver upon his promises and representations made to the Claimant.
In so far as CPR 16.7.5 and 16.8.2 (3) (4) and (7) may apply, the Claimant attaches in exhibit
marked ‘B’ a table of emails between the Parties with the Claimant’s comments in respect of
the Defendant’s conduct which constitute breaches, failings and misrepresentations.

7. Regarding paragraph 6 of the Defence, the Claimant will say that she was given no
opportunity by the Defendant for a ‘’cooling off period’’ and insisted upon payment
immediately upon meeting the Claimant.

12. Regarding paragraph 8 of the Defence, the Defendant is put to strict proof at the
final hearing to:

12.1 Itemise the Claimant’s failures ‘’to take commercial steps and follow a
business process’’



6
18. Regarding paragraph 12 of the Defence, at this early stage it would be
disproportionate under CPR 1.1 and the overriding objective to allow the Defendant
any costs of amending his Defence, particularly when he is unrepresented at this
stage. On balance any amending of the Defence should be on a no costs basis.
19. The Claimant also claims interest pursuant to Section 69 of the County Court Act
1984 at the rate of 8% for such period as the Court shall order.
20. The Claimant claims full legal costs under CPR 46 from 19 July 2021 and also claims
costs of issue.
Statement of Truth under County Court Civil Procedure Rule 22