In the High Court case of Henderson & Jones Ltd & Ors v Grange Heating Services Ltd & Ors (COSTS) [2024] EWHC 3572 (TCC), High Court Judge Adrian Williamson KC heard an application to amend the particulars of claim, which resulted in the refusal of the First Defendant's 68-page skeleton argument.

Background

The Claimant, a 'well-known' hotel in Ludlow, sought damages of £3,000,000 against a heating company and others who had allegedly provided poor services. The Claimant applied to amend their particulars of claim, which led to the First Defendant filing a lengthy skeleton argument, described as written submissions, running to 68 pages.

The Rules

The Judge explains at paragraphs 2 and 3 of the judgment that 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.

The Judge referred counsel to each of those guides. These guidelines state 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 of law or fact.

The First Defendant's Position

Mr Evans-Tovey submitted that paragraph 6.5.4 of the TCC Guide applies only to applications after the first CMC. This application took place before the first CMC.

Judge's findings

The Judge determined that the guidance did not intend to permit unlimited skeleton arguments before the first CMC and then require them to be brief thereafter.

The Judge held that he could not permit admission of the skeleton argument because it was not a proper skeleton argument within the confines of the rules. The Judge commented at paragraph 4 of the judgment that not only was the skeleton argument very long, but it ranged far and wide across matters of fact, law, and evidence.

The Judge also explained that he urged Mr Evans-Tovey via email over the weekend that the court must identify the matters that can be dealt with in the confines of a one-day hearing.

Discussion

The Judge clarified that this decision was not binding, but has it set a persuasive precedent regarding what is considered suitable regarding the length of skeleton arguments?

This decision may make counsel think twice before filing skeleton arguments which exceed 25 pages.