Henderson J set out the test of whether a case was suitable for summary judgment: ‘It is well established that in order to defeat an application for summary judgment it is enough for the defendant to show a prospect of success which is real in the sense of not being false, fanciful or imaginary. However, the burden on the defendant is at most an evidential one. The overall burden of proof rests on the claimant to establish, if it can, the negative proposition that the defendant has no real prospect of success . . and that there is no other reason for a trial. Regard must also be had to the overriding objective of dealing with the case justly. The court should not hesitate to give summary judgment in a plain case, and if the case turns on a pure point of law, it may determine that point. However, the court has often been enjoined not to conduct a mini-trial on the documents, without discovery and oral evidence . .’
Henderson J
[2008] EWHC 775 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corporation and Others v Recoletos Ltd and Others ComC 24-May-2010
The claimants sought summary judgment in their claims alleging fraud by the several defendants.
Held: Gross J granted leave to the Corporate Defendants to defend only upon terms of (in effect) a payment into court of $40 million. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Torts – Other, Litigation Practice
Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.266964