NOTE. The defence was served and re-served by Oxford on 28th January 1987, 15th February 1988 and 13th October 1989. Paragraph 4A (in purple) was (unsuccessfully) introduced by Oxford for the first time at the trial of the action on 12th March 1990. - A. M.
1. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the re-amended statement of claim are admitted.
2. It is admitted that the letters and enclosures passed between the parties on or about the dates pleaded in paragraphs 3 to 6 and 9 to 11 of the re-amended statement of claim, but it is denied that the contents of those documents are fully and accurately pleaded in the re-amended statement of claim. Paragraph 7 of the re-amended statement of claim is admitted. Otherwise, no admissions are made as to paragraphs 3 to 11, the relevance of which is denied.
3. It is admitted that Mr Hardy telephoned the plaintiff and spoke to him on or about 26 April and on or about 20 May 1985, but it is denied that paragraphs 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the re-amended statement of claim give a complete or accurate account of the conversations which took place, or any part of them.
4. In the premises it is denied that any agreement was concluded as alleged in paragraph 16 of the re-amended statement of claim or at all, and it is denied that the letters of 21 May and 14 June 1985 referred to in paragraph 17 (which are admitted as documents) confirm or evidence any such agreement.
4a. Further and alternatively, Mr Hardy had neither actual or ostensible authority to enter into a binding commitment on behalf of the defendants to publish the work.
5. Alternatively if, which is denied, any agreement for publication was concluded then it was an agreement whereby the first defendants agreed to publish the work subject to their approval of the final revised version, which the plaintiff was to produce.
6. No admissions are made after paragraphs 18 and 19 of the re-amended statement of claim. Paragraph 20 is not admitted and the relevance of these paragraphs is denied.
7. The letter dated 18 July 1985 referred to in paragraph 21 of the re-amended statement of claim is admitted as are the facts pleaded in the final sentence of paragraph 21. It is denied that the sending of the same constituted any breach or repudiation of contract, as alleged or at all. It is further denied that the plaintiff has suffered loss and damage as alleged or at all.
8. As to paragraphs 22 to 25 of the re-amended statement of claim,
(1) paragraph 22 is admitted;
(2) it is admitted that by letter dated 19 July 1985 Mr Hardy replied to the said warning, but it is denied that the contents of that letter are accurately summarised in paragraph 23 at the re-amended statement of claim.
(3) it is admitted that a disciplinary appeal hearing was convened for 23 July 1985 as alleged in paragraph 23;
(4) it is admitted that the plaintiff wrote the defendants the letter dated 22 July 1985 as alleged in paragraph 24;
(5) it is admitted that following a disciplinary hearing on 23 July 1985 the appeal panel decided to withdraw the said warning.
Save as aforesaid, those paragraphs of the re-amended statement of claim are not admitted and the relevance of the matters referred to in therein is denied.
8A. As to paragraph 26 of the re-amended statement of claim, it is admitted that there was prepared (by Ms Nicola Bion) a Memorandum dated 16 July 1985 addressed to the Delegates and containing details (inter alios) as pleaded in paragraph 26. It is, however, denied that the Delegates approved the publication of the work at a meeting on 23 July 1985 or at all. The work was never submitted for reconsideration by the Delegates, having been considered and rejected at an editorial meeting on 17 July 1985. Otherwise, paragraph 26 is not admitted.
9. Mr Hardy's letter of 30 July 1985 referred to in paragraph 27 of the re-amended statement of claim is admitted as a document, but it is denied that the matters referred to in that letter are requirements. Further, it is not admitted that the contents of that letter precisely confirmed the terms agreed (which is denied in any event) in the telephone conversation of 20 May 1985.
10. Paragraph 28 of the re-amended statement of claim is denied and it is denied that any agreement was concluded as alleged in paragraph 16 of the re-amended statement of claim or at all.
11. With regard to paragraphs 29 and 30 of the re-amended statement of claim, it is denied terms were agreed with Mr Hardy. It is admitted that the plaintiff prepared a revised version of the work but otherwise no admissions are made as to paragraph 29 and 30 of the re-amended statement of claim, and the relevance of the matters referred to in the remaining part of paragraph 29 and paragraph 30 is denied.
11A. The first sentence of paragraph 31 of the re-amended statement of claim is admitted. The second sentence is not admitted.
12. Ms Bion's letter of 9 May 1986 is admitted as a document but otherwise paragraph 32 of the re-amended statement of claim is denied.
13. It is admitted that the plaintiff has requested the defendants to publish the work, offering to carry out further revision, and that they have refused to do so, but otherwise each and every allegation in paragraphs 33 and 34 of the re-amended statement of claim is denied. The defendants were under no contractual obligation. In the alternative, their sole obligation was that pleaded in paragraph 5 above, and they did not approve the plaintiff's final draft. Further and in the alternative the plaintiff waived any breach of contract (which is denied) by his conduct in undertaking and/or completing and submitting a second draft of the work.
14. It is denied that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief being sought or at all.
Mark Warby
Served this 28th day of January 1987 by Dallas Brett solicitors for the first defendants
Amended and re-served this 15th day of February 1988 by Dallas Brett solicitors for the defendants
Re-served this 13th day of October 1989 by Dallas Brett solicitors for the defendants
Go to the top of this file, or to Malcolm's Statement of Claim, or to Master Barratt's order of 8/8/88.
Click for the Malcolm vs. Oxford I (1984-92) Index or the Malcolm vs. Oxford II (2001-02) Index
Go/return to the Affidavits: Ivon Asquith (1), Asquith (2), Henry Hardy, William Shaw (solicitor) (1), Sir Roger Elliott (1), Margaret Goodall, to the Witness Statements: Elliott, Hardy, Richard Charkin, Nicola Bion, Goodall, to the courtroom testimony of the Oxford Six, 14/3/1990: Elliott, Goodall, Bion, Asquith, Charkin, Hardy, to the testimony of Andrew Malcolm, 13/3/1990, to the Statement of Claim, to the Case History, to the Chancery Court Judgment, to the Appeal Court Judgment.