CA-2025-001477 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1360

4 Conclusion

In my view, the Wilsons have not shown that the judge was wrong to strike out this claim for the reasons that he gave. Robust case management requires a judge to weed out heads of loss which, on the face of the pleaded material, are hopeless. It is wrong in principle for claims which appear to be obviously too remote to be allowed to limp on to trial in the hope that something may come along to save them. Disputed Head 5 was such a claim. No arguments have been addressed to this court which would justify its reinstatement.

In any event, to the extent that Disputed Head 5 was put forward as yet another facet of a diminution in value claim, it suffers from all the same deficiencies noted in Sections 8.4, 9.4, and 10.4 above, with the added disadvantage that it does not even identify a claim figure. A ‘reminder to a valuer’ is not a distinct and separate head of loss. Disputed Head 5 was therefore rightly struck out.