IN THE COUNTY COURT AT BRISTOL
Claim number: K2BC1847
Claimant: Redfern Digital Studio Ltd
Defendant: Amelia Grace Porter
DEFENCE
Important jurisdiction and procedural warning
This fictional defence is an illustrative England and Wales small-claims document, not legal advice, not a response to any real claim, and not a universally valid court form. The Defendant must check the claim form, response deadline, service date, limitation, evidence requirements and current Civil Procedure Rules. A defence must answer the pleaded case accurately. Obtain advice promptly if a deadline is close.
1. Introduction and admissions
The Defendant is a freelance furniture designer of 9 Hazelbank Road, Bristol BS5 9QW. The Claimant is a web-design company of 31 Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6DZ. The Defendant admits that the parties discussed a website project in February 2026 and that the Claimant sent an invoice numbered RDS-2261 for £2,760. The Defendant denies that the invoice is presently due or that the Claimant completed the work in accordance with the parties' agreement.
The Defendant admits paragraph 1 only to the extent that it identifies the parties. All other allegations are denied unless expressly admitted below.
2. The agreement and agreed milestones
On 12 February 2026, the parties agreed by email that the Claimant would design and build a five-page website for the Defendant's furniture business, Cedarline Workshop. The agreed fixed price was £3,600, payable in three equal instalments of £1,200 after approval of the design, delivery of a working test site, and launch. The site had to display the Defendant's portfolio photographs, enquiry form, privacy notice and mobile layout, with two reasonable rounds of amendments included.
The Defendant paid the first instalment on 13 February 2026 after approving the visual design. On 19 March 2026, the Claimant supplied a test link. The link repeatedly returned an error when a customer submitted the enquiry form, the gallery images were displayed in the wrong order, and the mobile navigation could not be opened on the two devices the Defendant used. The Defendant sent a detailed list of defects on 21 March and again on 29 March.
3. Failure to complete and notice of termination
The Claimant promised by email on 31 March to correct the problems by 8 April 2026. It did not do so. On 9 April the Defendant tested the site with three independent users. All three reported that the enquiry form failed to send. The Defendant notified the Claimant on 10 April that the work was not accepted, invited a final correction within ten days, and explained that the Defendant would obtain another developer if the defects remained.
The Claimant supplied a further link on 18 April. The enquiry form then sent an automatic acknowledgement but did not deliver the enquiry to the Defendant's email account. The privacy notice was also missing from the footer. The Defendant sent screenshots and a written complaint on 20 April. On 24 April the Claimant replied that it considered the project finished and demanded the remaining £2,400.
The Defendant paid £360 for a different developer, Willowcode Services, to diagnose the site on 28 April. Willowcode reported on 2 May that the form had been connected to a non-existent mailbox and that the mobile menu contained a script error. The Defendant then instructed Willowcode to create a basic replacement site for £1,480, which launched on 16 May. The Defendant has retained both reports and invoices.
4. Response to the claim
The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the outstanding instalments. The Claimant failed to provide a working test site and failed to correct notified defects within a reasonable opportunity. The Defendant was entitled to reject the incomplete work or, alternatively, to seek a price reduction reflecting the work not supplied. The Defendant relies on the express agreement and, where applicable, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 provisions concerning reasonable care and skill, conformity with the contract and repeat performance or price reduction.
If the court finds that any sum was due, which is denied, the Defendant says the Claimant's claim must be reduced by the reasonable cost of correcting its work. The Defendant claims a set-off or counterclaim of £1,840, comprising £360 for diagnosis and £1,480 for the replacement site. The replacement work was reasonably necessary because the Claimant had declared the project complete while the core enquiry function remained unusable. The Defendant does not claim the cost of features that were not part of the original agreement.
The Claimant has not explained how it calculated its claimed £2,760, when the agreed unpaid balance was £2,400. The Defendant requests proof of the alleged variation, completion, acceptance and calculation. The Defendant also disputes any claim for contractual interest because no interest term was agreed and the claimed sum was disputed promptly.
5. Remedy and evidence
The Defendant asks the court to dismiss the claim. Alternatively, the Defendant asks the court to find that no more than the value of conforming work, if any, is payable after allowing the stated set-off or counterclaim. The Defendant will rely on the February quotation and emails, payment confirmation, defect list, screenshots, the Willowcode report, replacement invoice and correspondence. The Defendant is willing to use the small-claims mediation service.
6. 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 a person 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: Amelia Grace Porter
Name: Amelia Grace Porter
Dated: 2 June 2026
Address for service: 9 Hazelbank Road, Bristol BS5 9QW
The Defendant should file this document through the method directed by the court, serve a copy as required, and follow every later order about evidence, mediation, hearing attendance and any counterclaim fee.