HT-2022-000180 - [2024] EWHC 1088 (TCC)

For all the above reasons, the application for striking out any part of the pleading or for deferring a decision to strike out conditional on amendments and redrafts being advanced to the Court is rejected. The case has been pleaded at length. There have been alleged shortcomings of the pleadings, particularly as regards the differentiation between the claims against Sweett and MAAP, and in the identification of the non-compliance of Schedule 8 relied upon. This has in turn led to large scale amendments of the Particulars of Claim and the RFI Responses.

In respect of the case as regards the Vanity Units, I am satisfied that there is a case to answer and I reject the case to the effect that this was both defective and not being capable of being saved by way of amendment. As regards the other aspects of the case, if it was the case before that there was no real prospect of success in the case against Sweett, I am satisfied that there is a real prospect of success on the basis of the current versions. If it was the case that the pleading was deficient in being unreasonably vague or unparticularised, I am satisfied that it is sufficiently clear to provide a basis to go forward. The time has come to move forward.

The Court has applied the learning from authorities referred to above in the section about the legal principles. Each case has to be considered on its own facts. This case is very far removed from those cases where the Court has struck out cases on the grounds that they were unreasonably vague or incoherent or the like. In my judgment, whatever the history of the case up to now, on the basis of the pleadings as they now stand, there is a case to go forward.