KB-2025-001160 - [2025] EWHC 2369 (KB)

As to the test under Rule 3.4(2)(a), it is well established that, in contrast to an application for summary judgment under Rule 24.2, the court should focus on the pleaded case: The Royal Brompton Hospital NHS Trust v Hammond [2001] 1 Lloyds Rep PN 526 at [106]) and should ask whether that case is hopeless or bound to fail. Applications to strike out on the “no reasonable grounds” basis do not require evidence and the court should normally assume the pleaded facts to be true unless they are contradictory or obviously wrong: see e.g. MF Tel Sarl v Visa Europe Limited [2023] EWHC 1336 (Ch) at [34(1)]. Nor, generally, should the court seek to determine points of law which are not settled, particularly where the facts are in dispute or evidence would potentially shed light on the issue of law, or the issue of law may not arise when the facts are found: see e.g. Barrett v Enfield LBC [2002] AC 550 at 557.

Examples of the type of case which may be struck out under Rule 3.4(2)(a) are given at [1.2] of Practice Direction 3A on Striking Out a Statement of Case. These are: