![KB-2025-001160 - [2025] EWHC 2369 (KB)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_AJKZXmE.png){kind=logo}
KB-2025-001160 - [2025] EWHC 2369 (KB)
Fecha: 22-Sep-2025
The legal framework
The legal framework
CPR Rule 3.4
CPR Rules 3.4(2)(a) and (b) provide as follows:
“(2) The court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court-
(a) that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim; or
(b) that the statement of case is an abuse of the court's process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings; …"
The Rule therefore identifies two issues for the court (see Asturion Fondation v Alibrahim [2020] 1 WLR 1627 at [64] and Cable v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd [2020] 4 WLR 110):
first, is one of the specified bases for strike out established?
if it is, second, should the court in the exercise of its discretion strike the statement of case out?
- Heading
- Introduction
- The pleaded claim
- BISL’s reaction to the resignations of Mr Wheeler and the EMEA GPF employees
- The US proceedings
- The legal framework
- The “no reasonable grounds” basis for striking out
- The need for a proportionate approach
- The abuse of process ground for striking out
- Waiver by election
- Part 24
- The grounds on which Mr Wheeler seeks summary disposal
- Ground 1: internal inconsistency in the context of the BISL claim
- Discussion
- Ground 2: inconsistency between the US Proceedings and the Claim
- Discussion
- Ground 3: BISL did not incur the loss in any event
- Discussion
- Ground 4 – quantum claim misconceived?
- Discussion
- Ground 5: equitable claims
- Equitable compensation relief
- The claim for an account of profits
- No constructive trust
- No forfeiture of bonuses
- Ground 6: “inchoate ‘claw back’ claim”
- In any event…
- Conclusions