Atos Consulting Ltd v Avis Europe Plc

A statement of case should not be struck out merely because it is untidy, contains redundant material, or makes the future pleadings more difficult to use. Under rule 3.4(2)(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, the second limb requires the statement of case to prevent, or create a substantial obstruction to, the just disposal of the proceedings. The court should not use strike-out powers, under the guise of case management, to dictate how a party must plead its case where the opposing party can properly answer the pleading and the proceedings can fairly be managed. Any remaining difficulties can be addressed through the ordinary exchange of pleadings and case management directions.

Atos and Avis entered into a master services agreement concerning the provision and implementation of information technology systems. Following disputes about performance and termination, Atos commenced proceedings claiming damages and other relief. Avis applied under rule 3.4 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 to strike out the particulars of claim, arguing that they were untidy, included matters that were no longer relevant, and would obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings.

The central issue was whether those pleading and case-management difficulties satisfied the second limb of rule 3.4(2)(b).

1. Application dismissed. Avis’s application to strike out the particulars of claim was refused.
2. The application was advanced as a case-management measure rather than to terminate the proceedings. Avis argued that Atos should serve a short pleading and leave Avis to set out its positive case in a defence and counterclaim.
3. The court accepted that the existing pleadings might be untidy and more difficult to use. That was insufficient. The word “obstruct” in rule 3.4(2)(b) means more than the creation of inconvenience or disorder. The second limb is satisfied only where the statement of case prevents, or creates a substantial obstruction to, the just disposal of the proceedings.
4. Redundant or incorrectly placed material does not itself create such an obstruction. Counsel and the judge can identify which parts of a pleading remain relevant. The concession that Avis could do justice to its case in a defence and counterclaim showed that the existing particulars did not create a true obstacle.
5. Although the court must give directions in accordance with the overriding objective in Part 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, it should not step into the arena and dictate how either party must plead its case. The court therefore concluded that it had no jurisdiction to strike out on the proposed basis. Alternatively, if jurisdiction existed, striking out would be an improper exercise of the power.

Not stated in the judgment.