CL-2021-000431 - [2025] EWHC 1940 (Comm)

The Claimant’s Application Notice contains a mixture of applications for summary judgment and of applications to strike out. Some of these overlap, in the sense that the arguability of the Shortage Claim and of the Misrepresentation Claims is attacked both by way of summary judgment on the basis that the Defendant’s Claims have no realistic prospect of success at trial (viz. applying the well-known test: see e.g. Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All E.R. 91) and by way of strike out on the basis that each of the Claims “discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing […] the claim” (see CPR Rule 3.4(2)(a)).

Mr Peter MacDonald Eggers KC (who appeared with Mr Pearson) for the Claimant helpfully confirmed in oral argument that, in respect of those pleas in respect of which both summary judgment and an order for strike out are sought by the Claimant, if the Claimant succeeds in its summary judgment application, the strike out application is redundant and, if the Claimant fails and summary judgment is not granted, that disposes of the strike out application in the same way.

I therefore consider the summary judgment applications, before turning to the separate strike out applications, which do not relate to matters of arguability but to other aspects under CPR Rule 3.4 relating to deficiencies in pleading relating specifically to the Misrepresentation Claims.