THIS SKELETON ARGUMENT IS FAR TOO LONG, DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE RULES – AND ISN’T GOING TO BE ADMITTED

In  Henderson & Jones Ltd & Ors v Grange Heating Services Ltd & Ors (COSTS) [2024] EWHC 3572 (TCC) Adrian Williamson KC (sitting as a High Court Judge) refused to admit a “skeleton” argument that was too long and did not comply with the rules.

“… 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.”

THE CASE

The claimant in a construction case had made an application to amend its pleadings. The first defendant filed “written submissions” in response.  These were 68 pages long.   The judge was determining the issue of whether the skeleton should be admitted.

THE JUDGMENT ON THIS ISSUE

The judge pointed to the rules and Guides relating to skeleton argument, in particular their length.  He rejected an argument that these Guides only applied after the CCMC stage, he also rejected an application for permission to admit the skeleton.

1. 1. The damages claimed are of the order of £3,000,000. In directions given for the current application to amend, the point which arises at the moment is that the first defendant which is for present purposes the end-in-line defendant and the end end-in-line respondent to this application served on 24 April what were described as “written submissions” running to approximately 68 pages. The TCC Guide at section 6.5.4 says that for detailed guidance as to the form, content and length of skeleton arguments, reference should be made to the relevant provisions in the King’s Bench Guide, the Chancery Guide and the Commercial Court Guide.

1. 1. I have, therefore, referred counsel to each of those guides. It is not necessary to set out in extensio what they say but the gist of it is all 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. It is submitted on behalf of the first defendant that the provision I have read from paragraph 6.5.4 of the TCC Guide applies only to applications after the first CMC whereas we are concerned here with an application before the first CMC. It seems to me that is, with respect, an absurd reading of the rule. 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.

1. 1. As an alternative, Mr Evans-Tovey submits this: that despite the fact that no application was made to the Court for a longer skeleton argument until his email of Sunday that this document should nonetheless be admitted. I have read the document at pace. I cannot profess to have mastered every detail of the matters Mr Evans-Tovey has sought to put forward, 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.

1. 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.