Report comment

In the matter of:

Parent (Claimant)

-and-

Child (Defendant)

RE-RE-RE-RE-AMENDED DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM

1. It is admitted that the Defendant was present in the said room at the material time.

2. It is admitted that also in the said room at the material time was a pot of paint.

3. The colour of the paint within the pot is neither admitted nor denied, and the Claimant is put to strict proof thereof.

4. It is admitted that paint spillage occurred.

5. It is denied that the Defendant caused the paint spillage. The Claimant's allegation in this regard amounts to an allegation of res ipsa loquitur. The Defendant's case is that such an implied allegation is embarrassing and an abuse of process, being stanchioned by nothing more than suspicion. The Claimant invites the Defendant to amend its pleadings to remove this allegation, failing which the Defendant puts the Claimant on notice of her intention to apply at the Claimant’s expense to strike out this pleading and/or for summary judgment and/or for an order compelling the Claimant’s solicitor to show cause why he should not be struck off.

6. In the alternative, the spillage of paint was caused or materially contributed to by the negligence of the Claimant.

PARTICULARS OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

7. The Defendant was negligent in that he:

i) abandoned the Claimant alone in a room in breach of his parental responsibilities;

ii) abandoned the Claimant alone in proximity to a pot of paint when he knew, or ought to have known that this was inherently dangerous; and

iii) failed to wear a seat belt.

COUNTERCLAIM

The Defendant’s case is that the Claimant’s actions have irretrievably broken the parent/child relationship. The Defendant seeks the cost of employing two new parents…