CIVIL ARGUMENTS.

It is not enough to show an arguable defense; the defendant must show that they have a real prospect of successfully defending the claim. Major consideration is whether the defendant has shown a real prospect of successfully defending the claim.Real means it has to be more than merely arguable. Though, the Defendant has made an attempt here to eschew that he has a real prospect of success in defending against this claim. I again submit, there is a very clear breach of an EXPRESS contract between C and D, here that is very hard to defend or refute. Refer to Witness Statement. (PARA 6/ WS)D visited the Claimant on 4 May 2011, and discussed the renovation work. C made it clear to D what he required. Aside from expressing his preference for the type of wood to be used, C specifically said that he wanted all sight-lines of all the windows to align. He even drew two illustrations of which he gave to D.(Page 1 of GTB 1). D has and admits to receiving these illustrations(in his evidential bundle). Clearly on the illustrations it is very expressly written that Equal sight-lines were anticipated. A photograph was also given with equal sightlines in place. Even, in the Working Diary of D, he does not note anywhere that equal sight-lines were impossible nor difficult or that he expressed this impossibility or difficulty to the Claimant. Equal Sightlines was not achieved. Regardless, it is now understood and confirmed that the equal alignment could have been achieved, but was not, not due to impossibility but a lack of care and perhaps technical skill. (Refer to page 2, paragraph 4 and 5 of GTB2). (PARA 10/WS). 8th of June C chose mahogany, this was noted in Ds diary (page 3 CF1). However, what was provided in the end was not mahogany. This has been confirmed by another expert in the industry, Ever Glazing. (Refer to Page 1 of GTB2, paragraph 1). Also as we can see from the Witness Statement and also the Expert Evidence, there many defects in the work of the D. Expert Evidence confirms that this would not have happened, again if due care was taken. When he telephoned C on the 10th of June about whether he wanted transom windows. He did not tell C that standard door height would be jeopardised if he were installed transom windows onto the doors. There is no way that C would not have agreed given that he was 64, therefore particularly tall. Also from consulting other experts in the field, it is ascertained that it was indeed possible to attain the design requirements of C without any compromise. (Page 1, paragraph 2 and 3 of GTB 2) again, it was a lack of care on the part of D. There is also no good reason for setting this judgment aside, the C has perfectly complied with procedure and in compliance validly sought this judgment. The Defendant had 6 days since his release from hospital to seek to set aside the Judgment. He did not set up a forwarding service in his absence, even though he ran a business and the potentiality of litigation and action was clearly in scope given the exchange of Letters of Claim, dated 13th August and 10th September. He therefore did not seek to set it aside promptly.

CIVIL ARGUMENTS.

All the evidence for proper determination is before the court, the court should not allow the party to go to trial simply because there is a possibility of further evidence arising. (Case law, refer to Note). DEFENCE: PART 10 was only to Doors not All the windows.