CL-2021-000649 - [2025] EWHC 1333 (Comm)

The principles applicable to an application for summary judgment are well known and set out in Easyair Ltd (t/a Openair) v Opal Telecom Ltd [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch).

Counsel for the Claimants warned me against getting involved in a mini-trial on a summary judgment application and emphasised that the case now being put forward was based only on disclosure of limited information by VTBC. In reaching its conclusion the court must take into account not only the evidence actually placed before it on the application for summary judgment, but also the evidence that can reasonably be expected to be available at trial: Royal Brompton Hospital NHS Trust -v- Hammond (No.5) [2001] EWCA Civ 550.

Lord Briggs said in Lungowe -v- Vedanta Resources plc [2020] AC 1045 [45]:

“… On the one hand, the claimant cannot simply say, like Mr Micawber, that some gaping hole in its case may be remedied by something which may turn up on disclosure. The claimant must demonstrate that it has a case which is unsuitable to be determined adversely to it without a trial. On the other, the court cannot ignore reasonable grounds which may be disclosed at the summary judgment stage for believing that a fuller investigation of the facts may add to or alter the evidence relevant to the issue…”

Counsel also emphasised the need to not decide disputed issues of fact on an application for summary judgment.

I accept all those principles and have well in mind that the bar is not high for a party seeking to oppose a summary judgment application.