Parker v Snyder & Ors

At the strike-out stage, an arguable issue about the admissibility of evidence supporting a pleaded claim should not ordinarily be finally resolved where doing so would dispose of the entire claim. Evidence concerning an uncompleted or abandoned scheme may still be arguably relevant to the substance of claims such as conspiracy or fraud. Where the amended pleading, although unclear, places such evidence before the court, the appropriate question may be whether further particulars are required rather than whether the whole claim should be struck out. Permission to appeal should be granted where the admissibility issue is reasonably arguable.

The claimant brought proceedings against former business colleagues, alleging that they had acted together to run down a business which they were about to buy from him. The pleading included allegations of conspiracy and fraud. The original pleading lacked necessary particularity, but an amended pleading relied on a statement from a former operations manager, Mr Pearson.

The Manchester County Court struck out the whole claim for failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action. The judge considered that evidence concerning a scheme which had not been pursued would be inadmissible. The claimant applied for permission to appeal, raising the question whether that evidence and the matters pleaded from it could properly be rejected at the strike-out stage.

1. Application allowed. The Court of Appeal, comprising Lord Justice Carnwath and Lord Justice Waller, granted permission for the appeal to proceed. The appeal was to be heard by two Lords Justices, with a time estimate of half a day excluding judgment. Costs were reserved to the Court of Appeal.
2. The original pleading was defective because it did not give sufficient particularity, especially in relation to the allegations of conspiracy and fraud. By the time of the county court hearing, however, the amended pleading had brought into issue Mr Pearson’s evidence.
3. That evidence, if upheld at trial, showed dealings between at least two defendants designed to run down the business, even though the particular ideas known to Mr Pearson had not been pursued in that form.
4. Lord Justice Carnwath held that it was reasonably arguable that the evidence and the matters pleaded from it were admissible because they were largely related to the substance of the claim. At the least, admissibility was an issue which should not have been finally determined at the strike-out stage.
5. The significance of the order was that it removed the whole claim, rather than merely requiring a pleading to be made more particular. The costs part of the application therefore did not require separate treatment.

• Manchester County Court: His Honour Judge Howarth struck out the whole claim on the basis that the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The application for permission to appeal was allowed. The appeal was directed to be heard by two Lords Justices: [2002] EWCA Civ 1320.