Litigation and disputes · Litigation fee-earner, disputes partner
Review particulars of claim before they are served
Draft particulars of claim for a professional negligence action are ready to serve and the limitation position is tight. The review tests the pleading against the rules, against the documents on file and against the dates.
- Agents
- Research, Litigation & Disputes
- First draft
- A pleading review comes back from one run, with time left to amend before service.
The problem
Step 01 of 05
Add the draft and the underlying documents
The draft particulars, the retainer, the advice letters complained of and the client's loss schedule go on one matter.
Project Halcyon: SPA warranties and disclosure
Buy-side warranty review, disclosure analysis and cited due-diligence grid.
- Client
- Halcyon Bidco Ltd
- Reference
- WC-2026-0412
- Practice area
- Corporate / M&A
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Responsible partner
- E. Vance
No conflict check on file.Chat, on this matter
Compare warranties with the disclosure letter.
Three high-priority exceptions require action: the unregistered charge, the change-of-control right and the tribunal claim.
Send a message… (@ to mention tools)BalancedPrepare for- 25 Aug
Disclosure exceptions matrix
Chat
- 21 Aug
Disclosure exceptions matrix
Run · completed · 560 credits
- 18 Aug
Project Halcyon: Disclosure Letter
Document · indexed
- 16 Aug
Project Halcyon: Share Purchase Agreement
Document · indexed
- 4 Aug
Matter opened
Opened
Step 02 of 05
Run the pleading check
Prepare for: Work-Stream Memo. The instruction asks which allegations lack particulars, which facts pleaded are not supported by a document on the file, and where the loss is not linked to a breach.
Agent
Jurisdiction
Prepare for
Deliver as
Instruction
What should the agent look for?Documents
Drop a contract, or pick one from the matter
Also on the matter
- Offer_letter_v3.pdf2 pages
- Staff_handbook_2025.docx61 pages
- Board_minute_14_Aug.pdf3 pages
Platform model · zero data retention · audit register onStep 03 of 05
Read the limitation analysis
The earliest and latest possible accrual dates are worked out from the documents, and the memo says plainly that two of the four allegations sit close to the boundary.
6 items need your confirmation14 authorities · Where we lookedSenior Associate Employment Contract: English Law Review
Summary
- 1.
Clause 9(c), non-competeHigh
The 12-month prohibition on working for any law firm anywhere in the UK, Ireland or EU, in any capacity, is almost certainly wider than reasonably necessary and therefore unlikely to be enforceable.
Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd [2019] UKSC 32 - 2.
Clause 11, data and monitoringHigh
Blanket contractual consent is not an adequate basis for general employment processing, special-category data or unrestricted monitoring.
UK GDPR, Arts 6 and 9 - 3.
Clause 4, holiday carry-overHigh
The unconditional five-day cap conflicts with mandatory carry-over rights where sickness, statutory leave or employer failure prevents leave being taken.
Working Time Regulations 1998, regs 13 to 13A
- 1.
Step 04 of 05
Take the paragraph-level fixes
Each unparticularised allegation is matched to the paragraph number and to suggested wording, so the amendments can be made in one pass.
Replace the UK/Ireland/EU non-compete with a 3 to 6 month restriction tied to competing corporate-law work.
Replace blanket data consent with a lawful-basis clause and a separate monitoring notice.
Remove the five-day carry-over cap and reference the statutory carry-over rules.
Narrow the client non-solicit to clients dealt with in the final 12 months.
Add an explicit working-time opt-out withdrawal mechanism.
Confirm the bonus clause states the discretion is exercised in good faith.
Step 05 of 05
Verify and sign off
The partner clicks Verify all, checks the accrual dates against the retainer, and settles the pleading before it goes to counsel.
# Reference Source Verdict 1 Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd
[2019] UKSC 32— not yet checked 2 Working Time Regulations 1998
SI 1998/1833, regs 4 to 5, 10 to 14— not yet checked 3 Coppage v Safety Net Security Ltd
[2013] EWCA Civ 1176— not yet checked 4 UK GDPR, Articles 6 and 9
Retained Regulation (EU) 2016/679— not yet checked 5 Employment Rights Act 1996, s 1
c 18— not yet checked 6 Harlow v Artemis International
[2008] EWHC 1126 (QB)— not yet checked
What comes back
A document, not a transcript.
- Allegations that lack particulars, listed by paragraph number with suggested wording for each.
- Pleaded facts with no supporting document on the file, kept separate from those that are supported.
- A limitation analysis with the earliest and latest accrual dates, and the two allegations closest to the boundary.
- Open questions on when the client first knew of the loss, which the file does not answer.
Authorities it checks
- Civil Procedure Rules, Part 16
- Limitation Act 1980, s 5
- Limitation Act 1980, s 14A
What it does not do
- It does not settle the pleading. Counsel or a senior fee-earner does that, and the memo is written for them.
- It does not issue or serve anything, and no court deadline is met by the product.
- It does not decide the date of knowledge, which is a factual question for the client to answer.