The court considered the meaning of ‘real’ prospects of success: ‘This does not mean that a party can successfully resist summary judgement by suggesting, like Mr Micawber, that something may turn up to save him, though he does not know what: see per Megarry V-C in Lady Anne Tennant v. Associated Newspapers Group Ltd [1979] … Continue reading Fraser and others v Oystertec Plc and others: 3 Nov 2009
Judgment on the Defendant’s Application for a ruling by way of CPR 24.2 that the Claimant had, in fact, instructed a firm of solicitors in respect of a proposed property transaction before his accident in 2015. Judges: Master Thornett Citations: [2022] EWHC 2850 (KB) Links: Bailii Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules 24.2 Jurisdiction: England and Wales … Continue reading Holdgate v Bishop: KBD 11 Nov 2022
The defendant appealed a summary judgement on the claimant’s claim with respect to her alleged disclosure of details Miss Campbell’s private life. The claimant sought an action for account of profits for breach of the terms of a contract of service. The defendant claimed that a violent assault by the claimant on her was a … Continue reading Campbell v Frisbee: ChD 14 Mar 2002
The claimant alleged that the proposal for a game show submitted by him had been used by the various defendants. He alleged breaches of copyright and of confidence. Application was now made to strike out the claim. Judges: Arnold J Citations: [2010] EWHC 2065 (Ch) Links: Bailii Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules 24.2 Jurisdiction: England and … Continue reading Meakin v British Broadcasting Corporation and Others: ChD 27 Jul 2010
Appeals were made against interlocutory injunctions for alleged trade mark infringement. Held: The court should hesitate about making a final decision for summary judgment without a trial, even where there is no obvious conflict of fact at the time of the application, where reasonable grounds exist for believing that a fuller investigation into the facts … Continue reading Doncaster Pharmaceuticals Group Ltd and Others v The Bolton Pharmaceutical Company 100 Ltd: CA 26 May 2006
In appropriate cases it was proper for a court summarily to dispose of cases. If a party has no reasonable prospect of success, it is in accordance with the philosophy of the new rules to manage cases actively and to allot court time to cases with the need to deal justly with claims. In this … Continue reading James v Evans: CA 2 Aug 2000
Strike out – Realistic Not Fanciful Chance Needed The proper test for whether an action should be struck out under the new Rules was whether it had a realistic as opposed to a fanciful prospect of success. There was no justification for further attempts to explain the meaning of what are clear words. The judge … Continue reading Swain v Hillman: CA 21 Oct 1999
Principles Applicable on Summary Judgment Request The court considered an application for summary judgment. Held: Lewison J set out the principles: ‘the court must be careful before giving summary judgment on a claim. The correct approach on applications by defendants is, in my judgment, as follows: i) The court must consider whether the claimant has … Continue reading Easyair Ltd (T/A Openair) v Opal Telecom Ltd: ChD 2 Mar 2009
The claimants said that agents of the defendant had unlawfully accessed their mobile phone systems. The court was now asked whether the agent (M) could rely on the privilege against self incrimination, and otherwise as to the progress of the case. The claimant asserted that their claim was an intellectual property claim, allowing section 72 … Continue reading Gray v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another; Coogan v Same: ChD 25 Feb 2011
The claimants appealed against summary judgment striking out their claim against the first defendant firm of solicitors, on the basis that they had no real prospect of establishing that another defendant was or had held himself out to be a partner . .
Important point as to the strength of the case on the merits to be established in order to obtain leave to serve out of the jurisdiction and its relationship to the strength of the claim to be established to avoid being struck out under CPR 3.4 or 24.2. Judges: Mr Justice Colman Citations: [2001] EWHC … Continue reading De Molestina and Others v Ponton and Others: ComC 16 May 2001
Defendant’s application for summary judgment pursuant to CPR 24.2 and/or strike out of the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(a) on the basis that there are no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and /or (b) that it is an abuse of process. The claim is pleaded as one for restitution /damages in the sum of … Continue reading Ogedegbe v Simplyhealth People Ltd: KBD 17 Nov 2022
Pre-action disclosure. The test of a properly arguable case with a real prospect of success is the same test as is set out in CPR 13.3(1) and 24.2 in relation to setting aside judgments in default and resisting summary judgment respectively. The Court of Appeal in Rose had not been concerned with whether a lower … Continue reading BSW Ltd v Balltec Ltd: ChD 11 Apr 2006
The defendant did not appear at the trial and now appealed the judgment. The claim form and court papers had been served by post at the wrong address. The question was whether a defendant wanting to set aside a judgment was required to persuade the court to exercise its discretion or whether he was entitled … Continue reading Nelson and Another v Clearsprings (Management) Ltd: CA 22 Sep 2006
The defendant applied to have set aside judgement entered against him in default of acknowledgment of service. Held: The authorities make it plain that, in order to satisfy the test for resisting a summary claim for for wrongful repudiation and/or breach of contract, a defendant has to demonstrate a defence which is not ‘false, fanciful … Continue reading International Finance Corporation v Utexafrica SPRL: ComC 9 May 2001
In an request for pre-action discovery it was plainly wrong for the court to seek to decide in advance any element of the virtues of the case. Held: The appeal should be allowed. The case was arguable and should be allowed to proceed.Peter Gibson LJ said: ‘We have reservations about the approach adopted by the … Continue reading Rose v Lynx Express Ltd. and Bridgepoint Capital (Nominees) Ltd: CA 7 Apr 2004
The court was asked whether the district judge had applied the right test on an application to set aside a statutory demand because the conclusions of the district judge referred to a real prospect of success, the test used in CPR 24.2, rather than the test of genuine triable issue. Held: The debate as to … Continue reading Kellar v BBR Graphic Engineers (Yorks) Ltd: ChD 2002
The respondent, a neighbour of the claimant, had fallen into dispute with the claimant, and issued a leaflet and signs alleging fraud. The claimants obtained an injunction, and in the absence of a substantive defence, judgement. He claimed that the judgement had deprived him of his right to a jury trial because the case involved … Continue reading Safeway Stores Plc v Albert Tate: CA 18 Dec 2000
The claimants proposed pre-action discovery which was resisted. Held: A purpose of pre-action disclosure is to assist those who need disclosure as a vital step in deciding whether to litigate at all or to provide a vital ingredient in the pleading of their case. The rules required first that disclosure would be desirable in the … Continue reading Black v Sumitomo Corporation: CA 3 Dec 2001
CS CPR 24.2(a)(i) – Summary judgment against Part 20 Claimant – Whether no real prospect of success Indemnity – Indemnity against loss etc suffered by reason of indemnifier’s breach of contract – Date of accrual of cause of action – Breaches giving rise to claims by third parties – Whether cause of action accrues when … Continue reading The Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens Of The City Of London v Reeve and Company Ltd, G Lawrence Wholesale Meat Company Ltd, Citigen (London) Ltd: TCC 25 Feb 2000
‘The power of the court to strike out a statement of case under CPR 3.4(2)(a) – and the related power to give summary judgment under CPR 24.2 – has an important place in the disposal of claims in accordance with the Civil Procedural Rules. The exercise of those powers, in an appropriate case, gives effect … Continue reading Independents’ Advantage Insurance Company Ltd v Cook and Another: CA 24 Jul 2003
Misfeasance in Public Office – Recklessness The bank sought to strike out the claim alleging misfeasance in public office in having failed to regulate the failed bank, BCCI. Held: Misfeasance in public office might occur not only when a company officer acted to injure a party, but also where he acted with knowledge of, or … Continue reading Three Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of The Bank of England (No 3): HL 22 Mar 2001
The federal government sought to recover properties from the defendants which it said were the proceeds of corrupt behaviour by the principal defendant who had been State Governor of a province. The claimant sought summary judgment. Held: Summary judgment was refused. The witness statements were admitted to contain contradictory and unreliable evidence, and the allegations … Continue reading Nigeria v Santolina Investment Corp and others: ChD 7 Mar 2007
The rules contained two occasions on which a court would consider dismissal of a claim as having ‘no real prospect’ of success. Held: The only significant difference between CPR 24.2 and 13.3(1), is that under the first the overall burden of proof rests upon the claimant to establish that there are grounds for his belief … Continue reading E D and F Man Liquid Products Ltd v Patel and Another: CA 4 Apr 2003
In a defamation action, where the judge considered that, taken at their highest, the allegations made by the claimant would be insufficient to establish the claim, he could grant summary judgment for the defence. If the judge considered that a finding by a jury that the words alleged were defamatory, would inevitably be set aside … Continue reading Alexander v Arts Council of Wales: CA 9 Apr 2001
