[2025] EWHC 908 (Ch)

HNW is seeking to strike out the Defence and Counterclaim and/or for summary judgment in respect of the Counterclaim.

It is common ground that the test for a strike out application under CPR rule 3.4(2(a) is whether a claim is unwinnable and whether its continuance would be without any possible benefit to the respondent to the application. MF Tel Sarl v Visa Europe Limited [2023] EWHC 1336 (Ch) per Master Marsh. In that case, Master Marsh observed that this test is more stringent than the test for summary judgment. He held that the focus under CPR rule 3.4(2)(a) is on the statement of case and for the purposes of the application the applicant is usually bound to accept the accuracy of the facts pleaded unless they are contradictory or obviously wrong. In contrast to CPR rule 24.2, the court does examine or evaluate the evidence.

HNW does not seek summary judgment under CPR rule 24.2 in relation to its possession claim recognising that summary judgment is not available in proceedings for possession of residential premises under CPR Part 55. CPR rule 55.8(1) provides that at the hearing of a possession claim the court may either decide the claim or give case directions. Case directions, including allocation to a track, are given where a claim is “genuinely disputed on grounds which appear to be substantial” (CPR rule 55.8(2)). By implication, where a possession claim isnot genuinely disputed on grounds which appear to be substantial, the court may decide the case. In Global 100 Ltd v Laleva and others[2021] EWCA Civ 1835[2022] 1 W.L.R. 1046 Lewison LJ held (at paragraph 11 to 14) that the test to be applied when deciding whether a claim is “genuinely disputed on grounds which appear to be substantial” is the same as that for summary judgment under Part CPR Part 24 .

The central allegations advanced in the Defence, which is confusingly drafted with unhelpful paragraph numbering, are as follows:

These allegations are considered in turn below.

This allegation appears to be based on an error in the postcode committed by the Land Registry when registering the charge. The argument was abandoned in the course of the hearing.