Indicii Salus Ltd v Chandrasekaran & Ors

Allegations that an earlier search-order application was an abuse of process should be struck out where they have no real prospect of success. The court may assess whether the pleaded inferences are properly available from the evidence and documents. It need not permit cross-examination merely to investigate unsupported speculation. Serious allegations do not justify a trial if the available material cannot establish a real prospect of proving them. The flexible application of the civil standard concerns the strength and quality of evidence required, not a higher standard of probability.

The claimant sought to strike out the defendants’ pleaded allegations that the claimant had abused the process of the court in obtaining a search order. The defendants alleged that evidence had been known to the claimant earlier than represented, that the application had been deliberately delayed to cause maximum harm, and that one defendant had been joined for an improper purpose.

The application was made under Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Parts 3 and 24. The court considered whether the allegations had a real prospect of success and whether the factual disputes required a trial with cross-examination.

1. Application granted. The defendants’ Points of Claim alleging abuse of process were struck out as having no real prospect of success.
2. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Part 24, the court asks whether the claim has a real prospect of succeeding at trial, not merely a fanciful prospect. The inquiry may determine legal insufficiency at the outset, expose a factual case contradicted by the documents, and reject inferences which cannot properly be drawn from facts that are clear or capable of proof. The same practical approach applied to the strike-out jurisdiction.
3. The defendants’ central case required findings that several witnesses had lied to the court and had concealed material evidence. The pleaded case was founded principally on inference and speculation, without supporting direct or independent evidence. The contemporaneous correspondence was inconsistent with the alleged deliberate withholding of evidence.
4. The fact that factual disputes existed, or that witnesses might be cross-examined for other purposes, did not require the abuse allegations to proceed. It would be wrong to permit cross-examination in the hope that unsupported speculation might be confirmed.
5. Serious allegations require convincing evidence. Applying the flexible civil standard, the required strength and quality of evidence were absent. Alleged threats, the statutory demand, possible non-disclosure, and the joinder of the second defendant did not establish an abuse of process or an improper purpose in seeking the search order.