Thanks Rob,There’s more of an art to it than a black and white approach. The key word is ’relevance’. And relevance may not appear at first to someone who isn’t trained to see it in the particular context. Each branch/discipline of law has both a common set of relevant issues that are shared (think rules of evidence for example) and may also have their own idiosyncrasies.
Really, to know you‘d need someone familiar with the area of law to look at the precise issues of the matter in question.
The fact is that the (non particularised) defence pleading, only pleads that I didn't have a legal tenancy.
There is no pleading in the alternative to that.
The lawyer's submissions related to "Abandonment" and "Termination of the tenancy by abandonment" that have not been pleaded in the defence.
The non-pleaded submissions have found their way into the judgement:
“It is sufficient to deal with the application to refer to the defendant’s intention to defend on the basis of a serious question about whether the lease was terminated, and the determination of this issue involves contested questions of fact, and to some extent, contested questions of law.”
This was a finding resulting from an application for summary judgement.