Lewison J summarised the approach to be taken by courts hearing an application by defendants to strike out claims: ‘Both the application to strike out and the application for summary judgment are summary applications. The application for summary judgment is made by defendants against a claimant, which is less usual than an application by a claimant for judgment against a defendant. The authorities deal mainly with applications by claimants. The correct approach on applications by defendants is, in my judgment, as follows:
i) The court must consider whether the claimant has a ‘realistic’ as opposed to a ‘fanciful’ prospect of success: Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91;
ii) A ‘realistic’ claim is one that carries some degree of conviction. This means a claim that is more than merely arguable: ED and F Man Liquid Products v Patel [2003] EWCA Civ 472 at [8];
iii) In reaching its conclusion the court must not conduct a ‘mini-trial’: Swain v Hillman;
iv) This does not mean that the court must take at face value and without analysis everything that a claimant says in his statements before the court. In some cases it may be clear that there is no real substance in factual assertions made, particularly if contradicted by contemporaneous documents: ED and F Man Liquid Products v Patel at [10];
v) However, in reaching its conclusion the court must take into account not only the evidence actually placed before it on the application for summary judgment, but also the evidence that can reasonably be expected to be available at trial: Royal Brompton Hospital NHS Trust v Hammond (No 5) [2001] EWCA Civ 550;
vi) Although a case may turn out at trial not to be really complicated, it does not follow that it should be decided without the fuller investigation into the facts at trial than is possible or permissible on summary judgment. Thus the court should hesitate about making a final decision 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 of the case would add to or alter the evidence available to a trial judge and so affect the outcome of the case: Doncaster Pharmaceuticals Group Ltd v Bolton Pharmaceutical Co 100 Ltd [2007] FSR 3;
vii) The court should be especially cautious of striking out a claim in an area of developing jurisprudence, because in such areas decisions on novel points of law should be decided on real rather than assumed facts.’
In discussing the phrase ‘for some time’ Lewison J said: ‘The other ingredient needed to bring section 32(2) into play is that the breach is committed in circumstances where it is unlikely to be discovered ‘for some time’. Although the quoted phrase is imprecise, it seems to me that the implicit contrast that it is setting up is one between a breach of duty that would be immediately discovered (eg the infliction of a physical injury) and one that would not.’
Judges:
Lewison J
Citations:
[2007] EWHC 1044 (Ch), [2007] PNLR 28
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – JD Wetherspoon Plc v Van De Berg and Co Ltd and Others ChD 31-Mar-2009
. .
Cited – Meakin v British Broadcasting Corporation and Others ChD 27-Jul-2010
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. . .
Cited – Burnden Holdings (UK) Ltd v Fielding and Another CA 17-Jun-2016
The company, now in liquidation sought to claim for the alledged misapplication by former directors of its funds in 2007. It now appealed against a summary rejection of its claim as time barred.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Section 21(1)(b) . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.252310
