Two related applications were before the court: (i) the claimant’s application dated 27 March 2015 to amend the Particulars of Claim and (ii) the first defendant’s application dated 13 July 2015 to strike out the Particulars of Claim, alternatively for summary judgment against the claimant.
Flaux J considered what was required on a strike out application against a claim in fraud: ‘The claimant does not have to plead primary facts which are only consistent with dishonesty. The correct test is whether or not, on the basis of the primary facts pleaded, an inference of dishonesty is more likely than one of innocence or negligence. As Lord Millett put it, there must be some fact ‘which tilts the balance and justifies an inference of dishonesty’. At the interlocutory stage, when the court is considering whether the plea of fraud is a proper one or whether to strike it out, the court is not concerned with whether the evidence at trial will or will not establish fraud but only with whether facts are pleaded which would justify the plea of fraud. If the plea is justified, then the case must go forward to trial and assessment of whether the evidence justifies the inference is a matter for the trial judge.’
Judges:
Flaux J
Citations:
[2015] EWHC 3073 (Comm)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – JSC Bank of Moscow v Kekhman and Others ChD 20-Feb-2015
Appeal by JSC Bank of Moscow against the order giving effect to a judgment annulling a bankruptcy order. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Boyse (International) Ltd v Natwest Markets Plc and Another ChD 27-May-2020
Claim alleging misselling of interest rate hedging products. The court considered the defendants strike out application, and applications for leave to amend pleadings.
Held: it will normally be appropriate for summary judgment to be pursued on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice, Torts – Other
Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.554218
