IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [INSERT LOCATION] CLAIM NO. [INSERT NUMBER] Between X Y        Claimant - and - A B        Defendant __________________________________________________________________ DEFENCE __________________________________________________________________ 1 All paragraph numbers in this Defence refer to paragraph numbers in the Particulars of Claim dated [insert date]. 2 Without prejudice to the generality of this Defence, the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof as to when he was aware that the injury in question, the same being denied, was significant and was attributable in whole or in part to the act or omission which is alleged to constitute negligence and/or breach of duty for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1980. In the event that the Claimant is found to be out of time in bringing this claim, the Defendant will further aver that it is not equitable for the court to exercise its discretion to disapply the limitation period under s 33. The Defendant reserves the right to plead further as to this and to limitation generally in any event. 3 It is admitted that the Claimant started

A written statement under section 6A of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 served by the defence which sets out the nature of the accused’s defence, prosecution facts in issue and points of law.

The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA 1996) sets out the disclosure duties of both the prosecution and the defendant in criminal proceedings. For information on prosecution disclosure obligations, see Practice Notes: The service of prosecution evidence in Crown Court proceedings and Obtaining disclosure of unused evidence. Although deemed the ‘defence duty of disclosure’, this does not hold the same meaning as the prosecution duty of disclosure under CPIA 1996. It refers to the revelation of the defence case that will be presented at trial and does not apply to material gathered by the defence that will not be utilised during the trial. Provisions for the ‘defence statement’ by the accused are contained in CPIA 1996. Note that certain criminal cases are managed via Common Platform (the digital case management system for the magistrates’ court). In these instances, case material, including defence statements, witness statements and notices, will be served online through Common Platform. In Crown Court proceedings,

See board-circular'>offeree board circular. A separate offeree board circular is normally a feature of a hostile offer, in which circumstances it is commonly known as a defence document.

[IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [INSERT] OR IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE [[SPECIFY DIVISION]] [[SPECIFY SPECIALIST COURT]] [[INSERT LOCATION]DISTRICT REGISTRY] ] Claim No: [Insert claim number] Between [Insert name and details of the Claimant]        Claimant and [Insert name and details of the Defendant]        Defendant Defence 1 It is admitted that the accident described at paragraph 1 occurred at the time and place stated. 2 For the purposes of this action, it is admitted that the Defendant was driving [under the influence of alcohol OR under the influence of cannabis] OR and that the accident was caused by the negligence of the Defendant. 3 The Defendant will say that on the evening of

Necessity can be a defence where the defendant commits a criminal offence but only as the lesser of two evils, but it is of very limited and unclear application.

A defence that, before the claimant started proceedings, the defendant unconditionally offered to the claimant the amount due.

The Single Source Regulations Office (SSRO) has published its annual compliance bulletin, revealing similar headline key performance indicator performance to last year but low compliance with new component reporting rules and a decline in the Ministry of Defence (MOD) data verification. Around 75% of required component reports have not been submitted, and only 1 in 4 contract reports are verified. The SSRO continues working with the MOD and industry to improve compliance and ensure value for money in defence procurement.

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) awarded damages totalling approximately £35 million against a main contractor for construction defects in a luxury residential development. The claim by the freehold owner, under a collateral warranty, concerned serious defects at One Hyde Park including corroded chilled water pipework, failed butterfly valves, defective soldered joints and a non-functioning pantograph cradle. The defendant participated fully in proceedings until withdrawing funding and entering liquidation just before the February 2025 trial date despite its parent company's strong financial position. Following the defendant’s elective withdrawal, the court struck out the defence under CPR 39.3(1) but still required the claimant to prove its case, with the court's ability to test evidence being heavily constrained in the absence of cross-examination. The status of factual and expert evidence, where the defendant is not represented or present at trial, is considered and decided in this judgment, with reference to various legal authorities. Through examination of the evidence, including analysis of joint expert statements, the court found systematic breaches of the JCT contract through poor installation workmanship and defective materials, while confirming that expert reports have no evidential status unless the expert is called to verify them on oath. The judge criticised the defendant's conduct as ‘commercially amoral’ and accepted unchallenged expert evidence on the substantial remedial costs.

[ In the county court at [insert] OR In the High Court of Justice ] [ [Specify division] ] [ [Specify Specialist court] ] [ [Insert location] ] Claim No: [Insert claim number] Between [Insert name and details of the Claimant]        Claimant and [Insert name and details of the Defendant]        Defendant and [Insert name and details of the Third Party]        Third Party Third Party’s Defence

[IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [INSERT] OR IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE [[SPECIFY DIVISION]] [[SPECIFY SPECIALIST COURT]] [[INSERT LOCATION]DISTRICT REGISTRY] ] Claim No: [Insert claim number] Between [Insert name and details of the Claimant]        Claimant and [Insert name and details of the Defendant]        Defendant Defence 1 Unless otherwise stated, paragraph numbers in this Defence relate to paragraph numbers in the Particulars of Claim dated [insert date]. 2 Paragraphs 2 and 3 in the Particulars of Claim are admitted. 3 As to Paragraphs 4 to 6, the Defendant will aver as follows: 3.1 [Insert details of the incident the Defendant will allege, eg: On the evening of 12 June 2025, PCs Black and Blue (‘the Officers’) were on foot

The document by which divorce or dissolution proceedings in Scotland are defended in the sheriff court or the Court of Session.