The phrase refers to the factual basis the party relies on to support their claim or defence. In a statement of case, you lay out the facts you say happened (or didn’t happen) and that form the foundation for the legal arguments you’re making. These are the concrete events and circumstances the case will hinge on, and they indicate what needs to be proved at trial. They are not about the judge’s findings, the court’s procedures, or purely legal questions—that’s why this option best captures the meaning.

CPR 18 is the rule that lets a party obtain further information or clarification from the other side about the facts in issue, by court order, before trial. It’s used when a statement of case, a witness statement, or similar material is vague or incomplete and you need more detail to understand exactly what is claimed and what the defence says. The aim is to make the issues clearer and avoid surprises at trial, not to fishing for endless information. In practical terms, you apply to the court for an order requiring the other party to provide the additional information or to clarify specific points. The court then decides whether the request is proportional and necessary, and if it is granted, the other party must supply the information within a specified timeframe. This can help narrow disputes, identify what facts are truly in issue, and streamline the preparation for trial. It isn’t about how costs are assessed, how service of documents is carried out, or how to lodge an appeal, which are governed by other parts of the CPR.

Quorum is the minimum number of members required to be present for a general meeting to be valid and to transact business. For a company that has more than one member, the default rule is that two members must be present (in person or by proxy) to constitute a quorum. This ensures there is at least a small level of participation and prevents a meeting from occurring with only a single person making decisions. So two shareholders are needed because a single person would not meet the standard expectation when more than one member exists, unless the company's articles provide otherwise. The idea behind a fixed minimum rather than a majority is to set a practical floor that allows meetings to proceed without requiring a large turnout. If the company had only one member, that member would alone satisfy the quorum. And remember, the articles can change this number, so it’s always worth checking them.

When defending a claim, you respond to each factual point by either admitting it, denying it, or saying you do not know. If you actually don’t know whether a fact is true, you can’t truthfully admit or deny. In that situation the proper move is to request proof—ask the claimant to prove the facts on which the claim relies. This keeps you safe from making a false admission or denial and obliges the claimant to provide evidence for the contested points. So, the option to request proof is the one that fits when the defendant doesn’t know the facts. Admitting or denying would require knowledge, and saying none of the above ignores this available procedural path.