Posted: April 24th, 2023

L1480 ORAL SKILL
ASSESSMENT
Summary Judgment
February 2021
Crystal Clear Advertising Limited
-vNice Spice Limited
The contents of this assessment are confidential. You must not disclose, discuss or
express an opinion on the contents of this assessment or your answer to it to any
other person, by any means. You are not permitted to copy or reproduce the contents
of this assessment or any part thereof.
In particular, you should note that you may not consult any member of the University
of Law staff or any other person on any aspect of this assessment. If you are in any
doubt as to how to interpret any word or phrase in this assessment you should decide
for yourself what interpretation to adopt.
Advocacy
By attempting this assessment you are confirming that you are fit to sit, in accordance
with the Assessment Regulations.[INTENTIONALLY BLANK]L1480 Page 1 of 23 © The University of Law Limited 2020-21

Application & Exercise No: Summary Judgment – L1480
Case: Crystal Clear Advertising Limited v Nice Spice Limited
AssignmentTutorOnline

If you have been allocated the role of solicitor for the Claimant, you must apply for
summary judgment. If you have been allocated the role of solicitor for the
Defendant, you must oppose the application for summary judgment.
You are NOT permitted to change the time and date of your assessment. If you are
unable to attend due to circumstances beyond your control, you should contact your
Assessment Office for further advice.
Please note the following:-
1. You may take into the assessment ONLY:
 These documents; and
 One A4 side of notes.
2. You may annotate these documents with concise (bullet-type) words and
phrases ONLY. You may NOT use full sentences either written onto these
documents or within your notes. You will fail the assessment if you use your
notes in any way as a script that you read from verbatim.
3. The assessment commences when you enter the tutor’s room virtually. S/he is sitting
as the judge. The virtual room is the court. You will be expected to begin promptly.
The assessment ends when you have left the virtual room.
4. You will receive no feedback at the end of the assessment. You must behave at all
times as an advocate in a court of law.
5. You may be required to show your materials to the tutor at the end of the
assessment.
6. Please remember that Professional Conduct is pervasive and that points on
Professional Conduct can arise in any assessment.
7. In the assessment papers, the date and time of the hearing is specifically stated –
that is the time for the purpose of the hearing only. It should NOT be taken as the
date and time of your actual assessment for which you have been separately
notified.
8. Your submissions should NOT EXCEED 10 MINUTES. The tutor, sitting as the
judge, may stop your submissions after 10 minutes.
9. For the purposes of this assessment you are required to appear before a
Judge in a Court of Law. You must be dressed in appropriate professional
clothing. If you are inappropriately dressed, you are likely to fail the
assessment.
L1480 Page 2 of 23 © The University of Law Limited 2020-21
Statement of agreed facts for Applicant and Respondent
The Claimant is Crystal Clear Advertising Limited. The Defendant is Nice Spice
Limited. The parties are in dispute regarding a supply by the Defendant to the
Claimant of hot food that allegedly did not match its description and was not fit for the
Claimant’s stated purposes.
Proceedings were issued and served. The Defendant acknowledged service, indicating
an intention to defend the entire claim, and subsequently filed a Defence. The Claimant
has issued an application for summary judgment. The Defendant’s solicitors have filed
a witness statement opposing the application.
The hearing has an agreed time estimate of 30 minutes.
The parties have exchanged summary statements of costs and have agreed a sum of
£1,250 inclusive of VAT should any order for costs be made.
Assume for the purpose of the assessment that the hearing is taking place on 10 May
2021 at 10am*.
The Claimant is represented by Ashton Kaye LLP and the Defendant is represented by
Richmond Bingham LLP.
Notes to candidates:
(1) The pre-action correspondence, claim form, acknowledgment of service
form, draft order and summary statements of costs are not provided. You
may assume that these documents are irrelevant to this application.
(2) * This date is for the purposes of the fact pattern only. It is NOT the date of
your actual assessment, of which you have been separately notified.
L1480 Page 3 of 23 © The University of Law Limited 2020-21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N :
HL21 2917

Crystal Clear Advertising Limited
-and
Nice Spice Limited
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––– CLAIMANT
DEFENDANT
PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
1. At all material times the Claimant was a limited company operating in
the advertising, marketing and public relations sector and the
Defendant was a limited company operating in the commercial
catering sector.
2. On 7 December 2020 in the course of their respective businesses the
Claimant and the Defendant entered into a written contract (“the
Contract”) by which the Defendant agreed to supply to the Claimant’s
offices on 14 December 2020 a range of curry dishes and
accompaniments (“the Food”) for consumption by the Claimant and
the Claimant’s clients at a Christmas lunch. A copy of the Contract is
attached to these Particulars of Claim [Note to candidates: not
attached for the purpose of this assessment]. The price of the
Contract was agreed to be £950 including VAT, payable by the
Claimant to the Defendant in advance of delivery.
3. The Contract contained the following statutory implied terms:
3.1 That the Food would match its description as given by the
Defendant to the Claimant. In particular, the Defendant agreed
to supply to the Claimant a dish described on the Defendant’s
online menu as “Mango Curry”.
3.2 That the Food would be fit for the particular purpose made known
to the Defendant by the Claimant. More specifically, that the
Food would be suitable for consumption at a lunch involving
members of the London Vegetarian Council (“the LVC”), an
organisation that was at that time a client of the Claimant.
4. On 8 December 2020 the Claimant paid £950 to the Defendant by
Electronic transfer in full payment of the Contract price. On 14
December 2020 the Defendant delivered the Food, including several
containers of “Mango Curry”, to the Claimant’s offices.
L1480 Page 4 of 23 © The University of Law Limited 2020-21
5. In breach of the implied terms of the Contract the Food did not match
its description as given by the Defendant to the Claimant, and was not
suitable for the particular purpose made known to the Defendant by
the Claimant.
PARTICULARS OF BREACH
5.1 The “Mango Curry” supplied as part of the Food did not conform
to its description as it contained no mangoes and was in fact a
fish curry.
5.2 The “Mango Curry” supplied as part of the Food, being fishbased, was not suitable for the particular purpose of consumption
at a lunch involving members of the LVC.
6. As a consequence of the Defendant’s breaches of the Contract,
several members of the LVC suffered distress after the Claimant’s
Christmas lunch on 14 December 2020, and the LVC subsequently
cancelled an advertising services agreement with the Claimant that
would otherwise have run until the end of August 2021. This caused
a loss of profit to the Claimant.
7. As a result of the above breaches of the Contract the Claimant has
suffered damage and loss.
PARTICULARS OF LOSS AND DAMAGE

Lost profit due to cancellation of agreement with LVC: £ 250,000
8. The Claimant seeks interest on damages under s.35A Senior Courts
Act 1981 at such rates and for such periods as the court thinks fit.
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS:
(1) Loss and damage pursuant to paragraph 7 above.
(2) Interest pursuant to paragraph 8 above.
Dated: 15 March 2021 Signed: Ashton Kaye LLP
L1480 Page 5 of 23 © The University of Law Limited 2020-21
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I believe that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true. I
understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against
anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document
verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. I am duly
authorised to sign this statement on behalf of the Claimant.

Signed: Logan Tremblay
Logan Tremblay Position: Director of the Claimant
The Claimant’s solicitors are Ashton Kaye LLP of 44 Gresham Road,
London EC2V 4NF where they will accept service on behalf of the Claimant
(reference XA/BR/00145.0201).
To the Defendant
To the Court Manager
L1480 Page 6 of 23 © The University of Law Limited 2020-21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N :
HL21 2917

Crystal Clear Advertising Limited
-and
Nice Spice Limited
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––– CLAIMANT
DEFENDANT
DEFENCE
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
1. In this Defence, references to paragraph numbers and defined terms
are to paragraphs and defined terms of the Particulars of Claim unless
otherwise specified.
2. Paragraphs 1 to 4 are admitted.
3. Paragraph 5 is denied. More specifically:
3.1 The “Mango Curry” supplied by the Defendant to the Claimant
was a curry containing chunks of a fish known as the Mango Fish.
It was not described as a curry containing mangoes. The “Mango
Curry” supplied by the Defendant therefore conformed to the
description given by the Defendant to the Claimant.
3.2 As to paragraph 5.2, it is denied that the “Mango Curry” supplied
by the Defendant to the Claimant was unsuitable for the purpose
of consumption at a lunch involving members of the LVC. The
Claimant did not specify that the “Mango Curry” would be eaten
exclusively by members of the LVC, or that any members of the
LVC were vegetarians, or even with what type of “vegetarian” the
LVC concerned itself.
4. As to paragraph 6, it is denied for the reasons set out above that the
Defendant was in breach of its obligations under the Contract. It is
therefore also denied that any matters described in paragraph 6 or
otherwise arose as a consequence of such breach. As to the
remainder of paragraph 6 the following matters are not admitted as the
Defendant has no knowledge of them:
4.1 That the LVC cancelled any agreement with the Claimant.
4.2 The reasons for the cancellation of any agreement between the
LVC and the Claimant.
4.3 That the Claimant has suffered loss of profit.
L1480 Page 7 of 23 © The University of Law Limited 2020-21
5. As to paragraph 7, it is not admitted that the Claimant has suffered
loss in the amount described, or at all. For the reasons set out above
it is denied that any loss suffered by the Claimant resulted from breach
of the Contract by the Defendant.

6. As to paragraph 8, for the reasons set out above it is denied that the
Claimant is entitled to this or any other relief.
Dated: 29 March 2021 Signed: Richmond Bingham LLP
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that
proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who
makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by
a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. I am duly authorised
to sign this statement on behalf of the Defendant.

Signed: Sophia Vickers
Sophia Vickers Position: Director of the Defendant
The Defendant’s solicitors are Richmond Bingham LLP of 17 Bloomfield
Road EC2M 2KA, where they will accept service on behalf of the Defendant
(reference 0231-00061/YF/TD).
To the Claimant
To the Court Manager
L1480 Page 8 of 23 © The University of Law Limited 2020-21
N244
Application notice
For help in completing this form please read
the notes for guidance form N244 Notes.

Name of court
High Court of Justice
Queen’s Bench Division Claim no.
HL21 2917
Fee Account no.
(if applicable) Help with Fees – Ref no.
(if applicable)
W1567112 H W F – –
Warrant no.
(if applicable)
Claimant’s name (including ref.)
Crystal Clear Advertising Limited
(ref: XA/BR/00145.0201)
Defendant’s name (including ref.)
Nice Spice Limited
(ref: 0231-00061/YF/TD)
Date 19 April 2021
1. What is your name or, if you are a legal representative, the name of your firm?
Ashton Kaye LLP
2. Are you a Claimant Defendant Legal representative
Other (please specify)

If you are a legal representative whom do you represent?
3. What order are you asking the court to make and why? Claima
nt
Summary judgment under CPR 24.2 as the Defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending
the claim and there is no other compelling reason why the case should be disposed of at a trial.
The Defendant’s attention is drawn to CPR 24.5(1) and the need to file and serve any written
evidence on which the Defendant wishes to rely at least seven days before the hearing.
4. Have you attached a draft of the order you are applying for? Yes No
5. How do you want to have this application dealt with? at a hearing without a hearing
at a telephone hearing
6. How long do you think the hearing will last? Hours Minutes
Is this time estimate agreed by all parties? Yes No
7. Give details of any fixed trial date or period N/A
8. What level of Judge does your hearing need? Master
9. Who should be served with this application? Defendant
9a. Please give the service address, (other than details of the
claimant or defendant) of any party named in question 9.
 
30
 
L1480 Page 9 of 23 © The University of Law Limited 2020-21
10. What information will you be relying on, in support of your application?
the attached witness statement
the statement of case
the evidence set out in the box below
If necessary, please continue on a separate sheet.
____________________________________________________
Statement of Truth
(I believe) (The applicant believes) that the facts stated in this section (and any continuation sheets) are true.
Signed __________________________________ Dated ___________________________________
Applicant(‘s legal representative)(‘s litigation friend)
Full name _________________________________________________________________________
Name of applicant’s legal representative’s firm _____________________________________
Position or office held ________________________________________________________________
(if signing on behalf of firm or company)
11. Signature and address details
Signed ___________________________________ Dated _________________________________
Applicant(’s legal representative)(’s litigation friend)
Position or office held _______________________________________________________________________
(if signing on behalf of firm or company)
Applicant’s address to which documents about this application should be sent

Ashton Kaye LLP
44 Gresham Road
London
Postcode E C 2 V
4 N F
If applicable
Phone no. 0207 684 2200
Fax no. 0207 684 2100
DX no. 2104 LONDON
Ref no. XA/BR/00145.0201
E-mail address

Applicant’s solicitor
Ashton Kaye LLP 19 April 2021
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
L1480 Page 10 of 23 © The University of Law Limited 2020-21
Claimant
L Tremblay
First
Exhibits: LT1 – LT2
19 April 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N :
HL21 2917

Crystal Clear Advertising Limited
-and
Nice Spice Limited CLAIMANT
DEFENDANT
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
WITNESS STATEMENT
OF LOGAN TREMBLAY
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
I, Logan Tremblay of 17 Viceroy Place, London SE1 6RQ, will say as
follows:
1. I am a Director of the Claimant and I am duly authorised by the
Claimant to make this statement in support of its application for
summary judgment. This statement has been prepared following faceto-face discussions with my solicitor. Save as otherwise indicated, the
contents of this witness statement are made from my own knowledge
and belief.
2. The Claimant is a medium-sized advertising agency based in
Southwark, South London, and operates in a very competitive
environment. We have to fight hard to win, and then keep, our clients,
and part of the way we do this is with client events. We knew that
several board members of one of our larger clients, the London
Vegetarian Council, love curry-related cuisine, so we came up with the
idea of inviting the whole board of that client to a non-traditional
Christmas lunch catering to this preference.
3. On the recommendation of some of my personal acquaintances I
contacted the Defendant in late November 2020. From the beginning
I dealt exclusively with Sophia Vickers, a Director of the Defendant,
and our discussions were all very efficient and professional. I quickly
picked out a selection of what I took to be vegetarian dishes from the
Defendant’s online menu, and we agreed that a bulk order of each,
with accompanying rice and side dishes, would be delivered to the
Claimant’s offices in time for lunch on 14 December 2020.
L1480 Page 11 of 23 © The University of Law Limited 2020-21
4. On 14 December 2020 the food arrived in good time and, when set out
ready to eat, looked fantastic. The “Mango Curry” in particular smelled
delicious, and I could see juicy orange chunks of what I assumed was
mango visible in amongst its sauce and vegetables. When the lunch
began it was also a hit with the client, and of all the dishes that were
provided by the Defendant the “Mango Curry” was the only one that
was completely eaten.
5. Overall the lunch was a great success, and we were very pleased with
the impression that we had managed to make on the client. Then, at
8 am on 18 December 2020 I received a telephone call from Carl Mull,
Managing Director of the London Vegetarian Council and one of the
attendees at the lunch on 14 December 2020. He was almost
incoherent with anger. He said that one of his fellow directors had
liked the “Mango Curry” so much she had called the Defendant to find
out if it could be supplied to the London Vegetarian Council’s own
functions. At some point during that conversation it became apparent
that “Mango Curry” was not a curry made with mangoes, but was in
fact a fish curry made with something called a “Mango Fish”.
6. Carl told me that all of the members of the client who had attended the
lunch on 14 December 2020 had eaten some of the “Mango Curry”.
Unsurprisingly, 90% of that group were vegetarians and everyone at
the client was extremely upset at having been fed non-vegetarian food
without their knowledge or consent. I tried to calm him down but with
only limited success. Carl ended the call, and I have not been able to
speak to him directly since.
7. In the immediate aftermath of Carl Mull’s call to me I sent a number of
apologetic emails to, and left equally apologetic voicemails for, all the
board members of the client. I heard nothing back until 21 December
2020, when I received a short email sent on behalf of Carl Mull,
invoking a “gross misconduct” clause in the London Vegetarian
Council’s agreement with us and terminating it with immediate effect.
This was a huge blow, as the London Vegetarian Council agreement
was meant to run on until August 2021, and would have generated
£250,000 more profit over that period.
8. The more I think about the situation the angrier I become. There was
no proper indication on the Defendant’s online menu that “Mango
Curry” was a fish curry. I refer to an extract from the “curries” section
of the online menu, marked LT1. On 22 December I called Sophia
Vickers and we argued about the meaning of the description given on
the menu. She insisted that everyone knew that “Fruits of the Sea”
meant “seafood”. I disagreed, because to a casual reader it could just
indicate exotic fruits, particularly given the titles and contents of some
of the dishes under the heading.
9. For example, the very next dish on the menu after “Mango Curry” was
“Pineapple Curry”. I asked Sophia sarcastically whether that involved
“Pineapple Fish”. Sophia proceeded to tell me, very patronisingly, that
L1480 Page 12 of 23 © The University of Law Limited 2020-21
actually there was such a thing as a Pineapple Fish, but I forced her
to admit that the “Pineapple Curry” did not contain any and was made
with actual pineapples.
10. I also raised the point with Sophia that she, and therefore the
Defendant, had known that we were catering for members of the
London Vegetarian Council. She confirmed this. I went on to point out
that even if I did not know that “Mango Curry” was a fish curry, she did,
and she should have understood that it would not be suitable for a
group explicitly described as vegetarians. Sophia asked me whether
I had eaten any “Mango Curry” at the lunch, and whether I was a
vegetarian. I said I had eaten some, and that I was not a vegetarian,
but I didn’t see how any of that was relevant. She then asked whether
the clients were vegetarians. I said that most of them were, to which
she said “so what’s your point?”, as if she had somehow proved
something. As far as she knew at the time of the contract, they could
all have been vegetarians.
11. Sophia then told me that, in common with many of her “vegetarian”
friends, she considered herself a vegetarian even though she also ate
fish. I took issue with this, as I knew from working with the London
Vegetarian Council that they consider the term “vegetarian” to have a
very specific meaning. There are specific names for vegetarians who
eat dairy and egg products, but fish-eaters are just not vegetarians. I
refer to an excerpt from a leaflet published by the London Vegetarian
Council marked LT2, which explains this.
12. After a while on the telephone with Sophia I realised that we were
getting nowhere, and I ended the call. We have tried further to reason
with them since, but they refuse to accept that any of our problems are
due to their incompetence.
13. It is quite clear that in all the circumstances the Defendant has no real
prospect of successfully defending the Claimant’s claim, and that there
is no other compelling reason for a trial. I therefore ask that the court
grant the Claimant summary judgment in this matter.
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand
that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who
makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by
a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
Signed: Logan Tremblay Position: Director of the Claimant
Logan Tremblay
19 April 2021
L1480 Page 13 of 23 © The University of Law Limited 2020-21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N :
HL21 2917
Crystal Clear Advertising Limited CLAIMANT
-andNice Spice Limited DEFENDANT
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
EXHIBIT LT1
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
L1480 Page 14 of 23 © The University of Law Limited 2020-21
LT1
 MEAT 
Lamb Curry £ 8.50
Flavoured with special spice and grilled with onions,
capsicum and tomatoes in a special sauce.
Beef Curry £ 8.50
Slow cooked. Served with garlic, chillies and onion
in a thick sauce.
Chicken Curry £ 8.00
Cooked in a flat pan with tomatoes, green pepper,
garlic and ginger. Served with a creamy sauce.
 FRUITS OF THE SEA 
Prawn Curry £ 8.00
Marinated and cooked in a sweet, mild mango sauce
enriched with full cream.
Mango Curry £ 8.50
Cooked with mixed nuts and onions in a semi-sweet
coconut and almond sauce.
Pineapple Curry [v] £ 6.00
Mild and creamy, cooked in a buttery sauce. Sweet.
 VEGETABLE 
“Sergeant” Pepper Curry [v] £ 6.50
A hot and spicy dish cooked with green chillies
spices, onions, and yoghurt.
Courgette Curry [v] £ 6.00
With mint, yoghurt with crushed whole spices in a thick
mild sauce
Aubergine Curry [v] £ 6.50
Cooked with banana, onions and tomatoes in a thick
coconut sauce
I verify that this is the document referred to as exhibit LT1 in my witness
statement dated 19 April 2021.
Logan Tremblay
L1480 Page 15 of 23 © The University of Law Limited 2020-21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N :
HL21 2917
Crystal Clear Advertising Limited CLAIMANT
-andNice Spice Limited DEFENDANT
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
EXHIBIT LT2
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
L1480 Page 16 of 23 © The University of Law Limited 2020-21
LT2[LEAFLET LVC000403]THE LONDON VEGETARIAN COUNCIL
What is a vegetarian?
In our literature and campaigns we take a vegetarian to mean
someone whose diet consists of any or all of the following:
● Fruit
● Vegetables
● Grains, nuts and seeds
● Pulses and legumes
● Fungi, algae and yeast
● Some other non-animal-based foods (such as salt)
This is a basic definition, but there are many different types of
vegetarian. For example:
● Lacto-ovo-vegetarians also eat dairy products, and eggs.
● Lacto-vegetarians also eat dairy products, but not eggs.
● Ovo-vegetarians also eat eggs, but not dairy products.
Something that all true vegetarians do have in common is that they do
not eat foods that consist of, involve or are processed from any part of
the body of a living or dead animal. This includes:
● Meat
● Poultry
● Fish (including shellfish)
● Insects
You may see other, informal definitions of “vegetarian” or
“vegetarianism” that allow for the consumption of (for example) fish,
shellfish or certain types of meat. The London Vegetarian Council
does not recognise these diets as being vegetarian.
I verify that this is the document referred to as exhibit LT2 in my witness
statement dated 19 April 2021
Logan Tremblay
L1480 Page 17 of 23 © The University of Law Limited 2020-21
Defendant
S Vickers
First
Exhibits: SV1
26 April 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N :
HL21 2917

Crystal Clear Advertising Limited
-and
Nice Spice Limited CLAIMANT
DEFENDANT
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
WITNESS STATEMENT
OF SOPHIA VICKERS
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
I, Sophia Vickers of 192 Enderby Road, London SW8 9PD, will say as
follows:
1. I am a Director of the Defendant and I am duly authorised by the
Defendant to make this statement opposing the Claimant’s application
for summary judgment. This witness statement has been prepared
following discussions with my solicitor over the telephone. Save as
otherwise indicated, the contents of this witness statement are made
from my own knowledge and belief.
2. The Defendant is a mid-sized commercial catering company,
specialising in pan-Asian food. We have a solid reputation in and
around the City of London, and we maintain very high standards in
respect of our ingredients, our preparation and our fulfilment of orders.
3. In late November 2020 I received a call from Logan Tremblay. The
Claimant wanted to have a Christmas client lunch “with a twist”, as
Logan described it, at which all the food on offer would be curry or
curry accompaniments. It is actually not as novel an idea as he
seemed to think, and we have catered for events of a similar
description for years. I am proud to say we have never had any
complaints whatsoever about any of our food, including as to the way
it is described on the menu.
4. After a few short telephone discussions between us Logan picked out
a range of dishes that the Defendant would supply in bulk to the
Claimant’s client function on 14 December 2020. I don’t think Logan
was paying much attention to which dishes he was picking or how they
were described as he did so at great speed, but all of our dishes work
L1480 Page 18 of 23 © The University of Law Limited 2020-21
well together so this was not in itself a problem. Logan and I finalised
the agreement between the Claimant and Defendant in writing, over
email.
5. The Claimant paid for the food in full, in advance, as is the Defendant’s
policy, and on 14 December 2020 we delivered the order on time, in
full, piping hot and ready to be eaten. I was sure that the Claimant and
its clients would love our food, particularly a dish that we had
developed and added to the menu only a few weeks earlier, our
“Mango Curry”.
6. I assumed all had gone well as I heard nothing further from the
Claimant that week, and on 16 December I took a telephone call from
Jenny Kepler of the London Vegetarian Council. She said she had
been present at the Claimant’s client lunch and had particularly loved
the “Mango Curry”. I made a comment to the effect that it was always
good to get more fish into one’s diet, but Jenny seemed rather
confused by this. Eventually we established that she had not known
that the “Mango Curry” was made with Mango Fish. I expressed some
surprise at this, and then our conversation came to an abrupt end.
7. On 22 December 2020 I heard again from Logan Tremblay. He was
very upset. He said that the London Vegetarian Council had fired the
Claimant because there was fish in the “Mango Curry”, and many of
the Claimant’s clients were distressed at having eaten it. Logan
insisted that the “Mango Curry” did not match its description on the
Defendant’s online menu and asked me: “who puts fish in a Mango
Curry, then calls it vegetarian?” I referred Logan to the online menu
and pointed out that the “Mango Curry” was clearly listed as being
seafood, and was not described as vegetarian. This can be seen
clearly from Logan Tremblay’s own exhibit, LT1.
8. Logan kept going on about the “Pineapple Curry”, shown on the menu
immediately beneath the “Mango Curry”. I accepted that this was
actually made with pineapples, but it was also clearly marked with a
“[v]”, which elsewhere on the menu was explained to mean
“vegetarian”. The “Pineapple Curry” was arguably in the wrong part of
the menu, but crucially the “Mango Curry” was not, and was clearly
described. Even the price of the “Mango Curry” suggested it was not
merely a vegetable dish.
9. Besides, Logan should have been aware that a “Mango Curry” could
involve fish. I attach a one-page article from the September 2017
edition of trade magazine “Commercial Catering Monthly”, marked
SV1. Mango Fish has been a rising star of the catering industry for
several years, and is increasing in public recognition and popularity.
10. I freely admit that I knew the Claimant’s client lunch was for the
“London Vegetarian Council”, but it does not follow that everyone at
the lunch would be a vegetarian. Logan never said that members of
the “London Vegetarian Council” were exclusively vegetarians, and
there’s no logical reason why they should be.
L1480 Page 19 of 23 © The University of Law Limited 2020-21
11. In any event, during our telephone conversation of 22 December 2020
Logan confirmed that the food supplied by the Defendant was not
exclusively for, and was not eaten exclusively by, members of the
London Vegetarian Council. Logan himself has admitted to eating
some of the “Mango Curry”, and he is neither a member of the London
Vegetarian Council nor a vegetarian. It makes no sense that I should
simply have assumed that the Claimant required completely
vegetarian food.
12. I would also argue that the “Mango Curry” is, in fact, vegetarian, even
though it is a fish curry. I consider myself a vegetarian as I don’t eat
red meat, and I would happily eat our “Mango Curry”. I note Logan’s
exhibit LT2, but that’s just the London Vegetarian Council’s view of
things. Why is their view better than mine? Even their own leaflet
acknowledges that “there are many different types of vegetarian”.
13. I also note that, despite the London Vegetarian Council supposedly
having been horrified by eating a fish curry, Logan himself identifies
that it was the only curry provided by the Defendant that was
completely eaten. It is inconceivable that an entire batch of fish curry
could have been eaten in this way without someone realising what the
main ingredient was, so the London Vegetarian Council were clearly
quite happy to do so.
14. It is clear on the facts that the Defendant’s defence has a real prospect
of success in this matter, and that there are in any event compelling
reasons for a trial. I therefore ask that the court dismiss the Claimant’s
application.
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand
that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who
makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by
a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
Signed: Sophia Vickers Position: Director of the Defendant
Sophia Vickers
26 April 2021
L1480 Page 20 of 23 © The University of Law Limited 2020-21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N :
HL21 2917
Crystal Clear Advertising Limited CLAIMANT
-andNice Spice Limited DEFENDANT
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
EXHIBIT SV1
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
L1480 Page 21 of 23 © The University of Law Limited 2020-21
SV1
Commercial Catering Monthly September 2017
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Go, Mango! The unstoppable rise
of a new catering favourite.
Mango Fish will conquer the catering world in 2018.
By Emilia Crabtree.
It’s not often that a new ingredient forces its way into the consciousness
of the whole catering industry, but this year has seen the extraordinary rise
of the Mango Fish.
Originally found in subtropical climates, the Mango Fish has been a staple
of some cuisines for centuries, but the discovery of a particularly coldresistant sub-species three years ago opened the door to large-scale fish
farming in the lakes of Northern Europe.
Fast-growing, placid and able to eat almost anything, in its new habitat the
Mango Fish also has no natural parasites or diseases. The result is
exceptionally high turnaround, ultra-low maintenance costs and low
wastage. So far so good, but the real beauty is the fish itself. Its meaty,
orange flesh, both sweet and slightly savoury but not “fishy” in the
traditional sense takes up other flavours like a sponge. It substitutes well
for other fish, for white meat and even for chunky vegetables, as blind
industry taste-and-texture studies confirm. You have probably already
eaten Mango Fish without realising it.
Recognition amongst the public has been slower than in the catering sector,
with some producers reluctant to draw attention to a new ingredient in a
consumer market that still leans heavily towards traditional staples such as
cod, haddock, trout and tuna. But proper public awareness must surely come
in the next five-to-ten years: the Mango Fish is just too good to ignore.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Page 14
I verify that this is the document referred to as exhibit SV1 in my witness
statement dated 26 April 2021.
Sophia Vickers
L1480 Page 22 of 23 © The University of Law Limited 2020-21
ADVOCACY ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
MAKING AN INTERIM APPLICATION

Introduces the advocates, application and documents in an appropriate manner.
Accurately identifies the grounds for the application.
Clearly identifies the legal and factual issues that the court is to decide
By reference to the issues, identifies significant facts.
Demonstrates with reference to the documents where evidence in support of the significant facts
can be located.
By reference to the issues, draws persuasive conclusions from the significant facts and evidence.
Makes persuasive concluding submissions for order sought.
Replies appropriately to respondent’s submissions and any question raised by the judge.
Responds to decision and deals with costs appropriately.
Uses a logical structure.
Speaks clearly at an appropriate pace and volume.
Uses concise, plain and professional English.
Uses appropriate eye contact and body language.
Adopts a professional demeanour.
Maintains professional standards.
L1480 Page 23 of 23 © The University of Law Limited 2020-21
ADVOCACY ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
OPPOSING AN INTERIM APPLICATION

Accurately identifies the grounds for the application.
Clearly identifies the legal and factual issues that the court is to decide.
By reference to the issues, identifies significant facts.
Demonstrates with reference to the documents where evidence in support of the significant facts
can be located.
Responds to applicant’s submissions appropriately.
By reference to the issues, draws persuasive conclusions from the significant facts and evidence.
Makes persuasive concluding submissions for order sought.
Responds to decision and deals with costs appropriately.
Uses a logical structure.
Speaks at an appropriate pace and volume.
Uses concise, plain and professional English.
Uses appropriate eye contact and body language.
Adopts a professional demeanour.
Maintains professional standards.

Order | Check Discount

Tags: #1 Assignment Help Online Service for Students in the USA, AI Plagiarism free essay writing tool, Australian best tutors, best trans tutors, buy essay uk