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

The Judgment

The judge found six separate reasons why this claim must be struck out. They are set out in [30] in the following terms:

“30.

Several points can be made about this head of claim. First, it is not pleaded. Second, there is no averment of fact in the POC that would support it. Third, no averment of fact is made, even in the Schedule of Loss, that would support the existence of such a loss as a matter of fact. It is not said that the Wilsons attempted to raise finance, or wanted to do so, but were unable to do so. Fourth, the actual averments made are that Mr and Mrs Wilson purchased the first of their flats in 2012 and that in 2019 they intended to transfer one of the flats to their company, the third claimant, but decided against doing so when the defects were discovered. Fifth, the alleged loss, as defined in paragraph 48, is inconsistent with the stated intention in paragraph 11. I regard Redrow as correct to characterise the head of claim as "opportunistic" and as "rel[ying] entirely on the benefit of hindsight." Sixth, in the circumstances, the alleged loss is clearly too remote. It is no part of the Wilsons' case that they made anyone aware of any reinvestment plans.”