Defence that fails to deal with an allegation (CPR 16.5)

CPR 16.5(1) requires a defendant to deal with every allegation in the particulars of claim, stating which are denied, which it cannot admit or deny but requires the claimant to prove, and which it admits. There are two exceptions to the consequence of silence. Under CPR 16.5(3), if the defendant fails to deal with an allegation but sets out in the defence the nature of its case on the issue to which the allegation is relevant, the claimant must prove the allegation. Under CPR 16.5(4), in a money claim the claimant must prove any allegation about the amount claimed unless it is expressly admitted. Neither applies to the delivery allegation. Lanyon says nothing about delivery and does not set out any case on that issue, and the date of delivery is not an allegation about the amount of money claimed. By CPR 16.5(5), Lanyon is therefore taken to admit the allegation in paragraph (2).

Why B is wrong: The claimant must prove an allegation the defence does not deal with only where the defence sets out the defendant's case on that issue (CPR 16.5(3)), which Lanyon's does not.

Why C is wrong: Silence is not treated as a denial; a denial must be stated with reasons (CPR 16.5(2)).

Why D is wrong: There is no automatic Part 18 order; the CPR 16.5(5) consequence applies directly.

Why E is wrong: Failure to deal with one allegation leads to a deemed admission of that allegation, not automatic striking out of the whole defence.