IN THE CIVIL NATIONAL BUSINESS CENTRE Claim No.

24 2345

BETWEEN:

PLUMBIT LIMITED Claimant

And

THE MARKET FORCE LIMITED Defendant

DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM

DEFENCE

1. Paragraph 1 of the Particulars of Claim is admitted.

2. Paragraph 2 of the Particulars of Claim:

a. Mr. Holte (on behalf of the Defendant) and Mr. Thompson (on behalf of the Claimant)
entered a contractual agreement between the Defendant and the Claimant.

b. The Defendant denies that the documents mentioned in paragraph 2 of the Particulars of
Claim solemnly constitute the entirety of the contract. The contract terms were expressed
orally at an inspection carried out by the Claimant on 4 th July 2023 and reiterated in
writing via letter dated 17th July 2023. The oral agreement and written agreement
constitute the contract. Mr. Holte’s diary entry and acceptance letter are attached to the
Defence and Counter Claim as evidence for the express terms of the contract.

c. On the 4th of July 2023, at the Defendant’s premisses, as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the
Particulars of Claim and paragraph 2 of the Defence and Counterclaim, the Claimant and
Defendant orally agreed that in the event of contract, the work would have to be
completed by the 30th November 2024 and that all ceilings of the toilet suites referred in
paragraph 2 of the Particulars of Claim would have to be coated with Sandtex rough
finish.

1
 d.The Defendant
denies that the
documents referred
to in Paragraph 2 of
the
e.Particulars of Claim
constitute
3. Paragraph 3 of the Particulars of Claim:

a. It is admitted that it was an express term of the agreement that payment was to be made in
full 60 days after completion of the work. The Defendant withheld payment in response to
breaches of contract.

b. It is nor admitted nor denied that the sum would accrue interest after the 60-day period.
Interest was not discussed by the parties at any stage of negotiation of the agreement,
however it is admitted that interest is mentioned at the foot of the estimate.

4. Paragraph 4 of the Particulars of Claim:

a. It is admitted that the Claimant completed the work on the 20 th December 2023, however
such work was not completed correctly as per the express terms of the agreement and
under Section 13 of Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. Breach of statutory duty will
be addressed in the Counterclaim.

b. It is denied that the completion date was agreed to be set on the 20 th December 2023. The
date agreed for the work to be completed was the 30 th November 2023. Therefore, the
Claimant breached an express term of the agreement. Breach of Contract will be
addressed in the Counterclaim.

c. It is admitted that that the sum became due and payable on the 18 th February 2024 as per
the express term of the agreement that sets out the deadline for payment of 60 days once
the work was completed.

2
5. Paragraph 5 is admitted. However, the Defendant submits that payment was lawfully withheld
due to the Claimant’s breaches of contract and breaches of statutory duty.
The Defendant further submits that any amount found due to the Claimant shall be subject to
set-off, by reduction or extinguishment by any sums recovered by the Defendant under its
Counterclaim.

COUNTERCLAIM

6. Paragraph 1 of the Defence and Counterclaim is repeated.

7. The Claimant failed to complete the work in accordance with an express term of the
agreement

8. The Claimant failed to apply the correct finish in all toilet suites in accordance with an
express term of the agreement.

9. The claimant failed to supply services with reasonable care and skill, contrary to Section 13
of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.

PARTICULARS OF BREACH OF CONTRACT

10. Prior to the commencement of the work and the agreement, the Claimant carried out an
inspection at the premisses, on 4 Th July 2023, in order to assess the costs relating to the work
requested by the Defendant and to assess their business needs. At this stage, the Claimant was
informed and agreed with the Defendant’s business needs, which were that the deadline for
completion was the 30th November 2023 and that all ceilings were to be coated with the
special Sandtex rough finish. Furthermore, the Claimant was also informed about the
importance of completing the work by such deadline as the Defendant’s grand opening day
was scheduled for the 4th December 2023.

11. The work commenced in or around mid-October. By the 25 th November, the Defendant raised
concerns regarding the deadline being the fact that two of the six toilet suites were still
undergoing work. Call logs attached to the Defence and Counterclaim.

12. Paragraph 2 of the Defence is repeated. The site was cleared and the work completed on the
20th of December 2023. In breach of the express term of the agreement, the Claimant failed to
complete the work on the agreed date, being the 30th November 2023, resulting in loss and
damage to the Defendant. Mr. Holte’s diary entry, Defendant’s acceptance letter and letter in
response to reminder invoice are attached to the Defence and Counterclaim as evidence for
the express terms of the contract and consequent breach.

3
13. Paragraph 3 of the Defence is repeated.

14. It was an expressed term of the agreement that all toilet suites would be coated with a special
Sandtex rough finish. The ceilings on two toilet suites were not coated with the special
Sandtex rough finish, of which the Claimant was expressly required to do so under the
agreement. In breach of this express term, the Claimant failed to apply the Sandtex rough
finish coat and applied a standard smooth coat. The remaining four toilet suites were coated
correctly. Mr. Holte’s diary entry and letter in response to reminder invoice are attached to the
Defence and Counterclaim as evidence for the express terms of the contract and consequent
breach.

PARTICULARS OF BREACH OF STATUTORY DUTY

15. Under section 13 Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, the Claimant, at the material times,
where it was acting in course of the business, was under a statutory duty to carry out the
service with reasonable care and skill

16. Contrary to section 13 of the aforementioned Act the service provided by the Claimant was
carried out without reasonable care and skill. Two of the toilet suites were poorly plumbed.
The joints in the waste pipes had been glued rather than fitted with rubber seals, too much
glue was applied and the excess sat inside the pipes causing complete blockages. The waste
pipes were laid out too shallow of an angle which worsen the water flow. Both toilet suites
started to smell and got blocked within a couple of weeks since cleaning and clearing of the
site. Plumbing contractor report is attached to the Defence and Counterclaim.

PARTICULARS OF LOSS AND DAMAGE

In the first two weeks since the grand opening day and prior to the work being completed, the
Defendant received humiliating comments from clients regarding the conditions of their
premisses. Furthermore, a particular customer ( Summit Activity Centres Limited) cancelled a
training contract with the Defendant to which made the Defendant incur a loss of £7,500.

4
Email communication between the Defendant and the client (Summit Activity Centres
Limited) attached to the Defence and Counterclaim.

The Defendant called out a commercial plumber to rectify the toilets and to reinstall all the
plumbing to which the Defendant incurred £1,650 loss. Upon completing the service, the
plumber informed the Defendant about the issues regarding the plumbing work carried out by
the Claimant as mentioned in paragraph 16 of the Defence and Counterclaim. Invoice
attached to the Defence and Counterclaim.

The Defendant called out a decorator to apply the Sandtex rough finish in ceilings of the toilet
suites mentioned in paragraph 8 of the Defence and Counterclaim. The Defendant incurred
£350,00 loss. Invoice attached to the Defence and Counterclaim.

Furthermore, the Defendant incurred a 15% reduction in turnover within the first 6 months
from the grand opening day, resulting from the Claimant’s breaches of Contract and statutory
breach. The assessment that concluded the 15% reduction in turnover was acquired via
comparison with the turnover, over 6 months from grand opening, of another branch that
opened a couple of years ago in Liverpool. Profit and Loss statements pertaining to the loss of
15% of turnover of the Manchester branch and to the Liverpool branch are attached to the
Defence and Counterclaim as evidence of the loss of turnover.

PARTICULARS OF LOSS OF REPUTATION

In terms of loss of reputation, it is important to note that it is meant to describe the

As mentioned in Particulars of Loss and Damage, a client (Summit Activity Centres Limited)
cancelled the training contract with the Defendant. The Defendant tried to secure the contract
by offering a discount on their services, to which the client stated that they wanted the best
training not the cheapest.

Pairing this event with the loss of 15% in turnover in the first 6 months of operation, the
Defendant not only incurred financial losses resulting from the breaches of contract and
statutory breach but also incurred loss of reputation.

The Defendant claims interest under Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 on the sum
£9,500.00 at the rate of 8% per annum from 5 th December 2024 to date, being 354 days,
amounting to £ 737.10 and continuing at £ 2.08 per day until judgment or sooner payment.

From the Claimant’s unlawful conduct, the Defendant has been deprived of potential
business, therefore deprived from generating further turnover. The Defendant claims interest
over the 15% loss of turnover in compensation for such loss of profit pursuant to Section 69
of the County Courts Act 1984, at such rate and for such period of time as the Court sees fit.

5
 AND the Defendant counterclaims:

(1) The sum of £9,500.00

A. COUNSEL
23/11/2024

STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I believe [ the Defendant believes] that the facts stated in this Defence and Counterclaim are true. I
understand [the Defendant understands] that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought
against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a
statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
{I am duly authorized by the Defendant to sign this statement]
Signed:
Full Name:
Position or Office held:
Dated:

Hill & Redmond

Tel: 01612345678
Fax: 01612345600
DX: 40510 Stretford 1

REF: KL/MFL/0045

Solicitors for the Defendant

To the Court
To the Claimant