A claim was made against directors of a company involved in a takeover, for failure to make proper disclosure. The case involved also other issues. The defendants appealed against a refusal to strike out the claim.
Held: The rules made specific reference to cases in areas of law involving developing jurisprudence. This was one such, and the case should go ahead. The personal liability of directors on takeovers is evolving. The trial might well establish facts which would assist the claimants make out their case.
A court should consider carefully before dealing summarily with single issues if the claim will in any event, go to trial.
Potter LJ summarised the principles to be applied on an application for a summary disposal of a case: ‘It seems to me that the following principles are well established, at least as articulated in relation to summary disposal under Part 24 of the CPR. (1) The purpose of resolving issues on a summary basis and at an early stage is to save time and costs and courts are encouraged to consider an issue or issues at an early stage which will either resolve or help to resolve the litigation as an important aspect of active case management: see Kent – v- Griffiths [2001] QB 36. This is particularly so where a decision will put an end to an action.
In deciding whether to exercise powers of summary disposal, the court must have regard to the overriding objective.
The court should be slow to deal with single issues in cases where there will need to be a full trial on liability involving evidence and cross examination in any event and/or where summary disposal of the single issue may well delay, because of appeals, the ultimate trial of the action.
The court should always consider whether the objective of dealing with cases justly is better served by summary disposal of the particular issue or by letting all matters go to trial so that they can be fully investigated and a properly informed decision reached. The authority for principles (2)-(4) is to be found in: Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No.3) [2001] UKHL 16; [2001] 2 All ER 513 per Lord Hope, considering Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91; Green v Hancocks [2001] Lloyds Rep. PN212, per Chadwick LJ; and Killick v Price Waterhouse Coopers [2001] Lloyds Rep. PN17 per Neuberger J. . .
Summary disposal will frequently be inappropriate in complex cases. If an application involves prolonged serious argument, the court should, as a rule, decline to proceed to the argument unless it harbours doubt about the soundness of the statement of case and is satisfied that striking out will obviate the necessity for a trial or will substantially reduce the burden of the trial itself: see the Three Rivers case per Lord Hope . . considering the Williams and Humbert case. (6) It is inappropriate to deal with cases at an interim stage where there are issues of fact involved, unless the court is satisfied that all the relevant facts can be identified and clearly established: see Killick v Price Waterhouse . .
It is inappropriate to strike-out a claim in an area of developing jurisprudence. In such areas, decisions should be based upon actual findings of fact: see Farah v British Airways (unreported) 6th December 1999 (CA) per Lord Woolf MR and per Chadwick LJ, applying Barratt v London Borough of Islington [1999] 3 WLR 83 and X (Minors) v Bedfordshire CC [1995] 2 AC 633.’
Potter LJ
Times 10-May-2002, Gazette 07-Jun-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 594, [2002] 2 BCLC 323, [2002] 2 LLR 343
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 3.4(2)(a)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Smith and Others v Ministry of Defence QBD 30-Jun-2011
Claims were made after the deaths of British troops on active service in Iraq. In one case the deaths were from detonations of improvised explosive devices, and on others as a result of friendly fire. It was said that there had been a foreseeable . .
Cited – Smith and Others v Ministry of Defence QBD 30-Jun-2011
Claims were made after the deaths of British troops on active service in Iraq. In one case the deaths were from detonations of improvised explosive devices, and on others as a result of friendly fire. It was said that there had been a foreseeable . .
Cited – Bristol Alliance Ltd v Williams and Another QBD 1-Jul-2011
bristol_williamsQBD11
The driver had crashed into the insured’s building causing substantial damage. The court was asked which of the driver’s and building’s insurers should bear the costs. The driver’s insurers said that he had acted deliberately and therefore they were . .
Cited – Pickenham Romford Ltd v Deville ChD 31-Jul-2013
The claimant company’s administrators sought an order to have vacated unilateral notices entered against land titles registered to the claimant. The court now gave its reasons for making the order as requested by way of summary relief. The notices . .
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.
Civil Procedure Rules, Litigation Practice, Company
Leading Case
Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.171237