English, Welsh & Scottish Railway Ltd v Goodman

A claim may be struck out as an abuse of process where its allegations are broad, oppressive and insufficiently particularised to enable the defendant to know the case to be met. The court should examine individual heads of claim and the pleading as a whole. Claims unsupported by material capable of establishing reasonable grounds may be struck out. Litigation should be efficient, prompt and focused, with disclosure confined to relevant material.

The defendant, a former rail-industry manager, applied to strike out his former employer’s claim. The employer alleged that he had wrongfully encouraged employees to join a competitor, that confidential information had been used to obtain contracts, and that customers had been lost. The injunction claim was abandoned, leaving a damages claim. The defendant challenged the lack of particulars and the claimant’s reliance on witness statements to supply the substance of its case.

1. Disposition. Judgment was entered for the defendant. The whole claim was struck out as an abuse of the process of the court.
2. The court considered each head of claim separately and then assessed the pleading as a whole. The claims concerning the alleged use of confidential information and loss of customers had no material foundation. The claimant effectively abandoned them, and they were struck out.
3. The claim that the defendant had wrongfully encouraged employees to join the competitor was also inadequately pleaded. The claimant had not identified a properly supported case of wrongful encouragement, and the pleaded considerable replacement costs had not been incurred when the particulars of claim were verified.
4. The claimant could not defer identifying the substance of its case by stating that the necessary matters were merely matters for witness evidence. The lack of precision made it impossible for the defendant to prepare its evidence and trial case, including consideration of settlement procedures.
5. The pleading was excessively broad, unfocused and oppressive. The court concluded that its purpose was intimidation rather than the pursuit of provable loss. The disclosure process was also criticised as insufficiently focused, although that criticism was not determinative.
6. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs on the indemnity basis, including reserved costs, with an interim payment of £75,000 within 14 days. Costs were to be subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.

Not stated in the judgment.