KB-2024-000763 - [2025] EWHC 2791 (KB)
Fecha: 30-Oct-2025
THE LEGAL TESTS ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND ON STRIKE OUT
THE LEGAL TESTS ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND ON STRIKE OUT
Pursuant to CPR 24.2. the court may give summary judgment on the whole of a claim or a particular issue if:
Summary judgment applications are useful where there is a short point of law or construction which can adequately be addressed in argument without a fuller investigation into the facts, because there are no reasonable grounds for believing they would add to, or alter the evidence available to a trial judge, and thereby affect the outcome of the case.
Pursuant to CPR 3.4 (2) the court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court-
That the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim; and /or
It is an abuse of the courts process or is otherwise likely to affect the just disposal of the proceedings
The notes to the White Book make it plain at 3.4.2 that a claim should not be struck out unless the court is certain it is bound to fail. Within the Practice Direction there are examples of cases where the court may conclude that the particulars disclose no reasonable grounds because they set out no facts indicating what the claim is about or they are incoherent, alternatively despite a coherent set of facts, those facts even if true do not disclose a legally recognisable claim. A two-stage test should be applied as set out in Asturion Foundation v Alibrahim [2020] EWCA Civ 32 at [ 63]: “First the court has to determine whether the claimant’s conduct was an abuse of process. Secondly, if it was, the court has to exercise its discretion as to whether or not to strike out the claim. It is at that second stage that the usual balancing exercise, and in particular considerations of proportionality, becomes relevant.”
As to what is an abuse of process, at 3.4.3 in the White Book the notes record that there is no clear definition, and the scope is wide but if any abuse can be addressed by less draconian methods than a strike-out, then the other option should be taken.
- Heading
- BACKGROUND
- INITIAL POLICE DECISION
- REVIEW OF INITIAL DECISION
- COMPLAINT TO PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS UNIT (“PSU”)
- JUDICIAL REVIEW
- THIS CIVIL CLAIM
- THE LEGAL TESTS ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND ON STRIKE OUT
- OVERLAP BETWEEN SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND STRIKE-OUT APPLICATIONS & RELEVANT CASE LAW
- THE DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION
- Paragraphs 31 (Breach of Duty) and 32 (Breach of Statutory Duty)
- Paragraph 34 (Negligent Mis-statement) and Paragraph 35 (Negligent Mis-Statement)
- Paragraph 37 (Breach of Contract)
- Paragraphs 41, 42 and 43 (Malfeasance, Misfeasance and Nonfeasance)
- NO REASONABLE GROUNDS/MISCONCEIVED
- Paragraph 33 (Due process)
- Paragraph 36 (Professional negligence)
- Paragraph 38 (Breach of duty of care)
- NO REAL PROSPECT OF SUCCESS
- Paragraphs 44 - 46 (Human Rights Act claims)
- Conclusions