KB-2025-001929 - [2025] EWHC 2966 (KB)

The claimants recognise that the strike out application under CPR 3.4 is entirely derivative of the success of the Part 11 application. The argument is that it is abusive to make a stay application if the defendant is to be treated as having accepted this court’s jurisdiction. The defendant submits that the strike out application is “superfluous” as if the Part 11 application succeeds, a CPR 3.4 application being unnecessary. In any event, the Part 11 application has failed and as a logical consequence so does the strike out.

The claimants’ application under CPR 3.4 is dismissed.