Category: Litigation

In the course of discovery in Whiskers v. The Household, our paralegal Biscuit was dispatched to examine the space beneath the couch. He returned after 22 minutes with a hair tie, a bottle cap, the remains of a toy mouse, and a 2019 receipt for a sofa cover.

The receipt is of particular interest, as it proves that the sofa cover was purchased after the first claw marks, not before. This establishes that the household anticipated damage, and thereby consented to it. We have entered the receipt as Exhibit F and the hair tie as Exhibit G, which is also now missing.

We are pleased to report that the dispute between Mr. Hobbes and Mr. Calvin over the south facing window has been resolved. The matter turned on whether a bird visible from the window belongs to the first cat who sees it, or the cat who sits closest to the glass.

Terms of settlement: Mr. Hobbes shall have the window on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, and Mr. Calvin the others. Sunday is reserved for the bird. Both parties have signed with a paw and agreed not to chatter at the glass during the other’s turn, a promise neither has ever kept and neither expects to.

Our client, Mr. Pickles, was recently subjected to a bath without a hearing. He was lifted, carried, and placed in warm water by a single adult, in what we consider a textbook violation of due process. At no point was he given notice, nor an opportunity to argue that he was already clean.

Associate Marmaduke Pounce has filed for damages in the amount of six tins of salmon pate, plus emotional distress. A settlement offer arrived on Monday in the form of a towel and a treat. We have rejected the towel and are considering the treat, which we may keep as evidence.

The firm has this week filed for a permanent injunction against the defendant, a Hoovertron 3000 owned by the household of our client Mr. Biscuit. The vacuum cleaner has, on at least 41 documented occasions, emerged from a cupboard without notice and made an unreasonable noise.

We argue that the defendant is an attractive nuisance, a loud nuisance, and, in the words of our client, a monster. The defence has stated that the machine is merely doing its job. We note that it has never once asked permission to enter a room, and that its job is to take things from the floor, which are ours.

On the evening of 3 July, at approximately 9:42, a glass of water was situated on the edge of a coffee table. Our client, Mr. Pickles, a four year old tabby, approached the glass with what the opposing counsel has described as intent. We describe it as curiosity, followed by a single, deliberate paw.

It is the position of this firm that the table was positioned too close to the glass. The glass, for its part, made no effort to flee. A reasonable glass would have remained near the centre. We shall be filing a motion to dismiss on grounds of contributory negligence by the glass.