Conclusion
Conclusion
In my judgment the appeal succeeds on the basis that the learned Judge incorrectly applied the test for summary judgment/strike out to the facts and evidence placed before him. The issues that he identified in paragraph 12 of his judgment were issues upon which answers can be given with sufficient confidence. The claims based on what happened in 2000 are primarily barred by reason of limitation. The claim based on the alleged misrepresentation in 2013, fails to identify any reasonable reliance or causal loss. The claim that in 2021 loading was applied is incorrect. The reason given for the loading changed in 2021, but the loading had been there from inception.
It follows that the claim should be struck out and judgment entered for the Claimant.
- Heading
- Introduction
- The Procedural History
- The evidence generally
- The facts and the documents
- “Part 2: General Provisions” contains the following (among other provisions) “8. Law of the Plan Policies - England
- The complaint to the Irish Financial Services Ombudsman 2012
- Fresh complaints by Mr Dewji: June 2021 onwards
- The Re-amended Particulars of claim in this case
- Alleged breaches of Conduct of Business Rules
- The application before Mr Recorder Kelly KC
- The judgment of the Recorder
- The Grounds of Appeal
- Ground 1: discussion and determination
- Ground 2: discussion and determination
- Grounds 3 and 4
- When did the defendant know the essential relevant facts? Was it
- The Law Limitation
- Res judicata/abuse of process
- The taking out of the Policy in 2000
- Section 21
- Section 22
- Conclusion
- Conclusions
![CH-2025-000032 - [2025] EWHC 2988 (Ch)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_O3rEzCI.png)