Claim No.
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT GUILDFORD
BETWEEN:
MR MARK PEMBERTON
Claimant
and
MR GEOFF SHORT (trading as QUALITY WINDOWS)
Defendant
_____________________________________________________________
SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT TO APPLY
FOR SPECIFIC DISCLOSURE
______________________________________________________________
Introduction
1. This is an application on behalf of the Claimant (C) to obtain specific disclosure from the
Defendant (D).
2. The issue before the court is to establish if C satisfies the criteria to obtain specific
disclosure.
Documents relied on in support of the Application
3. C relies on the following documents listed within the agreed application bundle:
● Particulars of Claim (“PoC”) - Page 8
● Witness Statement of Emma Hart (“WSEH”) - Page 18
● Witness Statement of Geoff Short - Page 35
Background
Page 1 of 8
4. This claim arises from an issue of breach of contract, whereby C contracted with D to
provide x20 door and window units for his property. [PoC, para. 9, page 9] The express
specifications for the units were that they were designed to be Georgian style where the
insert bars in the windows and french doors corresponded with each other horizontally
and vertically; made from hardwood mahogany; and for the doors to be of a specified
height.
5. On 2 July 2025, D fitted the windows and doors and on 7 July 2025 C inspected the
work. The inspection revealed a multitude of issues. [PoC, para. 13, page 10] All of the
doors were shorter than the initial agreed measurements of 2540mm and 2100mm,
instead measuring on or about 1830mm. Both the doors and windows were not made
from hardwood mahogany as agreed, but from softwood Douglas Fir as confirmed by a
separate design and glazing consultant, who also highlighted a subsequent difference in
price of £26,000. [WSEH, para. 1, page 26] D disputes this, claiming that C is mistaken.
6. The insert bars in the windows did not correspond horizontally or vertically and the
renovation works were not carried out with reasonable care and skill which has caused
further issues to the openings of the doors and windows.
7. C requested that D replace the doors and windows to the specifications agreed, however
D claimed that doors and windows were finished to the agreed specifications. [PoC,
para. 13, page 10]
8. C is claiming damages for the loss suffered. [Poc, para. 15, page 11]
The Legal Test
9. Firstly, it is contested that D has not complied with the standard disclosure procedure
under CPR 31.6.
Standard disclosure requires a party to disclose only—
(a) the documents on which he relies; and
Page 2 of 8
(b) the documents which—
(i) adversely affect his own case;
(ii) adversely affect another party’s case; or
(iii) support another party’s case; and
(c) the documents which he is required to disclose by a relevant practice
direction.
10.It is therefore submitted that an order under CPR 31.12 for specific disclosure or
inspection is made.
1. The court may make an order for specific disclosure or specific inspection.
2. An order for specific disclosure is an order that a party must do one or more
of the following things—
a. disclose documents or classes of documents specified in the order;
b. carry out a search to the extent stated in the order;
c. disclose any documents located as a result of that search.
11.As per Practice Direction 31A para 5.4, when deciding whether to make an order, the
court considers all the circumstances surrounding the case and the overriding objective. If
the party to whom disclosure is sought has failed to comply with the obligations imposed
on them for an order of disclosure, the court will usually make an order to ensure such
obligations are complied with.
12.Under CPR 31.12.1, the application must set out the documents or classes of documents
for which disclosure is sought. Where a class of documents is sought, it should be defined
carefully to ensure it covers only items which are relevant and proportionate to ensure the
disclosing party has no doubts as to what they are required to provide as per City of
Gotha v Sotherby’s [1998] 1 W.L.R 114. It may also be appropriate to explain why the
requested disclosure would be reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.
13.When making a request for specific disclosure, the court must be satisfied under CPR
31.12.2 that the documents are relevant to the pleaded issues as per Harrods Ltd v Times
Page 3 of 8
Newspaper Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 294; [2006] All E.R. (D) 302 (Feb) and that they are
within the party’s control or there is evidence to support that they are.
Submissions
All working drawings, plans, calculations and similar documents
Why is this required?
14.The drawings that have been provided to date are minimal and do not form a
comprehensive selection of designs to be expected from someone who has the level of
industry experience as D. There are no drawings of the front and back doors and many of
the designs are missing measurements, crucially with no detail or measurements of the
inset bars which is a fundamental factor to this case.
15.While this is a class of documents being requested, the classification is narrowed to
drawings and designs specifically in relation to C’s property which we submit is
reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances to produce. D claims that it is
impossible to say, of the documents within this folder what they are and who created
them, however it is submitted that with D’s reputation, years of experience and the
amount he charges, it is simply not plausible that he does not have a comprehensive set of
designs of which he worked from in order to create over £80,000 worth of windows and
doors.
Do these documents comply with the Standard Disclosure procedure under CPR 31.6?
16.Standard disclosure requires a party to disclose documents which both support and
adversely affect their case and the cases of any other party to the proceedings. Although
there is no formal definition of the term ‘reliance’, the documents which come under this
category are those which a party intends to use in court.
17.Of the documents from the log book / design folder, they don’t resemble the quantity that
would be expected for a contract of that size. Although a contested point, it is submitted
Page 4 of 8
that something within the design process went wrong, hence the poor fitting, the issues
with the fixtures, gaps around the windows and the non-conformity of the inset bars.
Therefore, despite the fact that these designs and drawings may prove to be less than
desirable for D, he is required to produce them if they may support C’s case.
Are the requested documents relevant and within the parties control?
18.As alluded to, these documents are extremely relevant, with much of the dispute
centering around the design and fitting of the windows and doors. It is submitted that
these documents are within D’s control, namely by the fact that C saw this log book when
D visited his property and C has admitted to having the ‘log book’, but that he is unable
to differentiate all of the designs in there.
19.It is not accepted that D is unable to differentiate between the designs. If that really is the
case and he has a multitude of documents relating to countless properties within one
folder with no way of determining which belongs to which, an adverse inference could be
drawn to show that D could have easily used a design made for someone else’s property
when working on C’s, which would account for the many faults that occurred within the
design and fitting process.
20.In the likely alternative, D is able to source these documents that he admits are
accessible, and therefore they are within his control.
Documents in relation to the order of wood
Why is this required?
21.The issues surrounding the type of wood that has been used for the windows and doors is
also central to this case, with an estimated £26,000 difference between the two types of
wood suggested to have been used, it is therefore important that the type of wood is
determined. The information surrounding the wood is not a classification of documents,
merely one or two documents to prove what the wood was.
Page 5 of 8
22.This information is reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances for the reasons
previously stated.
Do these documents comply with the Standard Disclosure procedure under CPR 31.6?
23.Due to the sheer lack of documentation surrounding this specific matter, it is clear that
this does not comply with the Standard Disclosure procedure under CPR 31.6.
Are the requested documents relevant and within the parties control?
24.For reasons previously stated, the requested documentation in relation to the wood is
extremely relevant.
25.It is not accepted that a person of D’s reputation and experience has no documentation to
confirm what the type of wood was. Being a sole trader, the requirement for receipts and
invoices evidencing expenditure is necessary for a self assessment and calculation of
income tax. If D really does have zero record of the purchase of wood, he will at least be
able to provide information in relation to how much money he withdrew from the bank to
pay for the wood, and or in the alternative, request that the wood supplier themselves
provide evidence of the order as they are likely to have such records for general business
and audit purposes.
Beaumarsh House documents
Why is this required?
26.The documents in relation to Beaumarsh House, whereby D was instructed by the owner,
Amanda Sutton, demonstrate the same issue with regards to the insert bar alignment that
C has experienced. This information is relevant as Ms Sutton succeeded in a claim
against D due to his failure to comply with the contract specification of providing
windows with equal sightlights.
27.It is not accepted that this documentation would bring D’s reputation into dispute,
especially as this would not be classified as ‘credibility’ documentation used to simply
Page 6 of 8
doubt a party’s honesty, as per Favour Easy Management v Wu [2010] EWCA Civ 1630,
rather this information is required due to the similarities in the cases and the closeness in
proximity in terms of the type of work undertaken and the period of time between each
job. Additionally, D claims that he would require permission from Ms Sutton to disclose
this information but as per Science Research Council v Nasse [1980] AC 1028, under
CPR 31.6, confidentiality is not a valid reason to not submit specific disclosure.
Do these documents comply with the Standard Disclosure procedure under CPR 31.6?
28.It is not submitted that D failed to comply with CPR 31.6, to produce standard disclosure
in reference to the Beaumarsh Documents. Despite the fact that these documents are
likely to adversely affect his case and in turn support C’s case, this revelation was
discovered after the initial request for disclosure and it is reasonable in the circumstances
to assume that D did not appreciate that these documents were relevant for the reasons he
has provided.
29.Nevertheless, although these documents likely wouldn’t have been classified as standard
disclosure, they are requested now under specific disclosure.
Are the requested documents relevant and within the parties control?
30.As mentioned, the documents surrounding the works at Beaumarsh House are of a very
similar case, specifically a case of which the claimant succeeded against D. For that
reason, these documents are relevant and there is no evidence to suggest that they are not
within D’s control.
31.Additionally, D makes a counter argument to suggest that his drawings of other properties
should be included within his disclosure, however it is submitted that such drawings
would be too far removed from the current case as they would not be reflective of what
the Beaumarsh House documents would provide, that being evidence of an error, almost
identical to the errors C has suffered and therefore relevant to the present case.
Conclusion
Page 7 of 8
32.The court is invited to make an order for specific disclosure on the part of D for the log
book of drawings, documentation relating to the type of wood used and documents in
relation to Beaumarsh House. Of the documents provided by D, there are clear gaps
within the disclosure and therefore it is submitted that D has not complied with CPR 31.6
to provide standard disclosure of the documents he relies on, and the documents which
would adversely support his case and support that of C’s.
33.It is submitted that for the reasons previously outlined, C satisfies the criteria to obtain
specific disclosure.
Page 8 of 8
