BPTC Drafting Paper 2

You are instructed on behalf of the claimant, Evergreen Developments Ltd, a property development company. Your client entered into a Joint Venture Agreement dated 1 March 2023 with the defendant, Oakfield Capital Partners LLP, to develop a site in Manchester into a mixed-use residential and commercial development. Under the agreement, Evergreen was responsible for all construction management and Oakfield was responsible for securing project finance of £8.5 million. Clause 4.2 required Oakfield to secure and make available the project finance within 6 months of the agreement date (by 1 September 2023). Clause 7.1 provided that profits would be split 60/40 in favour of Evergreen. Clause 12.3 contained a limitation of liability capping each party's liability at £2 million, excluding fraud and wilful default. Oakfield failed to secure the project finance by the deadline. It eventually obtained partial funding of £5.2 million on 15 December 2023, but by that time construction costs had increased by £1.4 million due to inflation and supply chain delays, and the project timeline had been extended by 9 months. Evergreen had to obtain bridge financing of £800,000 at a high interest rate to keep the project alive during the delay. The development is now complete and has been valued at £14.2 million, but the projected value had been £16.5 million before the delay. Evergreen claims: (a) the additional construction costs of £1.4 million; (b) the bridge financing costs of £800,000 plus interest of £120,000; (c) the lost profit on the reduced development value: 60% of £2.3 million (the difference between projected and actual value) = £1,380,000. Total claim: £3,700,000, subject to the contractual cap. Draft Particulars of Claim for this breach of contract action.

You are instructed on behalf of the defendant, Northgate Construction Ltd, in a claim brought by the claimant, Mr and Mrs Okafor, homeowners who engaged Northgate to build a two-storey rear extension to their property in Hertfordshire for a contract price of £165,000. The claimants allege the work was defective, incomplete, and not carried out with reasonable skill and care. Their Particulars of Claim identify 17 specific defects and claim £95,000 for remedial works, £12,000 for alternative accommodation during remedial works, and £8,000 for distress and inconvenience. Your client instructs you that: (i) 9 of the 17 alleged defects are admitted — they relate to cosmetic finishing work that Northgate was unable to complete because Mr Okafor refused to allow workers back onto the site after a dispute about a variation; (ii) the remaining 8 alleged defects are denied — Northgate says the work meets Building Regulations and the specification; (iii) the dispute about the variation arose because Mr Okafor instructed additional work (a Juliet balcony and upgraded underfloor heating) costing £22,000, which he has refused to pay; (iv) the remedial costs claimed (£95,000) are grossly excessive — Northgate's own quantity surveyor estimates the cost of remedying the 9 admitted defects at £18,500. Draft a Defence and Counterclaim.

You are instructed on behalf of the appellant, Mr Raymond Chambers, in a Crown Court appeal against conviction and sentence from the Magistrates' Court. Mr Chambers was convicted of common assault, contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, following a trial at which he represented himself. The incident occurred at a pub on 18 October 2024. The prosecution case was that Mr Chambers punched the complainant, Mr Brian Walsh, once to the face during an argument, causing bruising to Mr Walsh's left cheek. Mr Chambers' case was that Mr Walsh had been aggressive throughout the evening, had grabbed Mr Chambers by the collar, and that Mr Chambers pushed him away in self-defence. The push caused Mr Walsh to stumble and hit his face on the edge of a table. The magistrates convicted, stating in their reasons: "We preferred the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The defendant's account was not credible." They sentenced Mr Chambers to a community order with 80 hours of unpaid work. He has 2 previous convictions for common assault from 2016 and 2019. Mr Chambers now instructs you that: (a) a key defence witness, his friend Mr Keith Pollard, was at the pub but was not called because Mr Chambers did not realise he could compel witnesses to attend; and (b) the magistrates refused his request for an adjournment to obtain CCTV from the pub, which he says would show Mr Walsh grabbing him first. Draft a skeleton argument in support of the appeal.

You are instructed on behalf of the respondent local authority, Greenshire County Council, in judicial review proceedings brought by the claimant, Meadowlands Residents' Association, challenging the Council's decision to grant planning permission for a waste incinerator facility on greenbelt land adjacent to a residential area. The claimant argues that: (i) the Council failed to conduct an adequate Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) as required by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017; (ii) the Council's planning committee was biased because two of the seven committee members had previously expressed public support for the incinerator project before the planning application was considered; and (iii) the Council failed to have due regard to the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, given that the residential area has a disproportionately high percentage of elderly residents and residents with respiratory conditions who would be adversely affected by emissions. Draft the key sections of detailed grounds of resistance for the judicial review proceedings.