CH-2025-000032 - [2025] EWHC 2988 (Ch)

Mr Recorder Kelly KC had the benefit of detailed skeleton arguments from each of Mr Steadman and Mr Karim.

For present purposes I can summarise some of the key provisions of Mr Steadman’s skeleton argument before the Judge. They are largely repeated before me.

First, he referred to the relevant provisions of the CPR regarding strike out and summary judgment and set out a number of references to and quotes from a number of the well-known authorities in those two areas.

Secondly, he identified the relevant legal tests under section 32(1)(b) and (c) and, for the reasons that he set out, submitted that on the facts they did not apply and that the majority of the claims accordingly had no real prospect of success and should be struck out.

Thirdly, he identified certain claims that he said were res judicata by virtue of the decision of the Ombudsman.

Fourthly, he refuted the assertion that travel loading had been applied retrospectively and so, he submitted, claims based on that assertion failed.

Finally, he dealt with claims arising from the mistaken assertion of Prudential that the loading that applied had been applied for medical reasons (rather than travel reasons). In brief, he submitted that there was no sustainable pleading of causal loss by way of reasonable reliance on any such misrepresentations.

The hearing as I understand it, took almost an entire day.