Salmon LJ: I agree. I would emphasise that it is highly desirable that the indorsement to the writ should plainly set out the cause of action on which the plaintiff relies. It may be that it is sufficient…if the writ merely gives a concise statement of the nature of the relief or remedy required by the plaintiff; but the disadvantage of confining the indorsement of the writ to a concise statement of the relief or remedy required (as the plaintiff has done in the present case) is that the plaintiff may find himself in considerable difficulty when he comes to deliver his statement of claim. It seems to me, although I am expressing no concluded view on the point, that the provisions of [the Rules of Supreme Court] preclude the plaintiff from including any cause of action in his statement of claim which is not mentioned in the writ…
Barclays Bank plc v Fairclough Building Ltd  QB 214 Court of Appeal
(See p 395.)
Beldam LJ:… Finally, though it is unnecessary to do so, I should deal with the point raised by Mr Elliott that the ground on which the judge found the plaintiff at fault was not pleaded. Mr Elliott did not put his case on the footing that he would have called any additional evidence had the case found against the plaintiff been pleaded. He frankly stated that he could not now say with the benefit of hindsight how he would have approached the allegation on which the plaintiff was found to have been at fault. It is not, however, difficult to see that there might have been evidence, for example directed to the issue whether the plaintiff in the light of its previous dealings with the defendants ought to have regarded it as prudent to inform itself of the method of cleaning adopted by the subcontractor of whose employment it was not informed.