BPTC Drafting Paper 1

You are instructed by the claimant, Mr David Richardson, a self-employed plumber, aged 47. On 12 August 2024, Mr Richardson was driving his van on the A34 near Newbury when a lorry operated by Titan Haulage Ltd, driven by its employee Mr Stephen Keane, collided with the rear of his van at a roundabout. Mr Keane failed to brake in time as traffic slowed. Mr Richardson suffered a whiplash injury to his cervical spine with referred pain to his right shoulder, which has limited his ability to carry heavy tools and work overhead. His medical expert, Mr Patel (consultant orthopaedic surgeon), reports a 12-month recovery period with a 10% risk of chronic pain. Mr Richardson was unable to work for 8 weeks immediately following the accident, losing £6,400 in earnings (average weekly income £800). He has incurred physiotherapy costs of £1,200 and prescription charges of £180. His van required repairs costing £3,800 and he hired a replacement van for 3 weeks at £420 per week. He continues to experience intermittent pain affecting his work capacity, estimating a 20% reduction in earning capacity for the next 10 months. Draft Particulars of Claim for this personal injury action.

You are instructed on behalf of the defendant, Phoenix Retail Ltd, in a claim brought by Mrs Karen Fletcher. Mrs Fletcher claims she slipped on a wet floor in the defendant's department store on 3 November 2024 and suffered a fractured hip requiring surgical repair. The Particulars of Claim allege negligence and breach of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957. Your client instructs you as follows: the store has an automated floor-cleaning system that operates overnight, finishing at 6am. The store opens at 9am. A member of staff conducts a floor inspection at 8:30am each day and records it in a logbook. On 3 November, the logbook entry confirms the 8:30am inspection found the floor dry. Mrs Fletcher's accident occurred at 10:15am. Between 8:30am and 10:15am, there were approximately 200 customers in the store. Your client believes the wet patch was caused by a customer spilling a drink, but no member of staff was alerted to the spillage before the accident. The store has a policy requiring staff to check their designated areas every 45 minutes during trading hours, but your client accepts this check was not carried out in the relevant area between 8:30am and 10:15am — a gap of 1 hour 45 minutes. Your client denies liability but wishes to raise contributory negligence — Mrs Fletcher was wearing high-heeled shoes and was looking at her mobile phone while walking. Draft a Defence to the claim.

You are instructed on behalf of the applicant, GreenTech Solutions Ltd, a technology startup. The company has developed proprietary software for managing renewable energy installations. It recently discovered that its former Chief Technology Officer, Dr Marcus Tan, who resigned 6 weeks ago, has joined a direct competitor, SolarWave Systems Ltd, and has taken with him a USB drive containing GreenTech's source code, client database, and business development strategy. Dr Tan's employment contract contained: (a) a confidentiality clause covering all proprietary information; (b) a 12-month non-compete clause within the UK renewable energy technology sector; and (c) a clause requiring the return of all company property on termination. GreenTech has evidence from its IT department that Dr Tan downloaded 4.7GB of data to a USB drive on his last day. LinkedIn shows he updated his profile to "CTO at SolarWave Systems Ltd" two weeks after leaving. SolarWave has just announced a product that appears substantially similar to GreenTech's unreleased next-generation platform. Time is critical — GreenTech believes SolarWave plans to launch the product at a major industry conference in 10 days. Draft the key sections of a skeleton argument in support of an application for an interim injunction.

You are instructed on behalf of the applicant father, Mr James Whitfield, in private law children proceedings. Mr Whitfield and the respondent mother, Ms Rachel Greenwood, separated 18 months ago after a 7-year relationship. They have two children: Emily, aged 9, and Thomas, aged 5. The children live with their mother. Mr Whitfield currently sees the children every other weekend from Saturday morning to Sunday evening, by informal agreement. He seeks to vary the arrangements to include midweek overnight contact every Wednesday (collected from school and returned Thursday morning) and half of all school holidays. Ms Greenwood opposes the midweek contact, saying it disrupts the children's routine, particularly Emily's homework and after-school activities (she attends dance class on Wednesdays and swimming on Thursdays). She is agreeable to increased holiday time but proposes one-third rather than half. Mr Whitfield is a secondary school teacher with a stable home (3-bedroom house, 15 minutes from the children's school). There are no safeguarding concerns. Both parents are described by CAFCASS as caring and competent. Draft the key sections of a position statement for the first hearing dispute resolution appointment (FHDRA).