Bleasdale & Anor v Forster

Summary judgment should be granted only where the claim has no realistic prospect of success and there is no other compelling reason for a trial. The court must avoid conducting a mini-trial on documentary material, particularly where the case depends on disputed oral evidence, credibility and inferences from incomplete documents. Powerful material for cross-examination does not necessarily establish that a claim is fanciful. Where the evidence may be clarified or altered by oral testimony, the issues should ordinarily be left for trial. This is especially so where the remaining claims will in any event require a full trial and summary disposal would risk inconsistent or unjust findings.

The claimants alleged that the defendant had fraudulently induced them to invest in a private company, alternatively claiming damages for breach of contract. The defendant applied for summary judgment under CPR Part 24.2, or alternatively sought to strike out the fraud allegations under CPR Part 3.4(2)(a) and (b). She relied principally on disclosed documents said to contradict the pleaded representations, falsity, reliance and inducement. The claimants relied on their pleaded evidence, including disputed conversations concerning a purported £750,000 contract and the company’s financial prospects. The central issue was whether the fraud claims had no real prospect of success and could safely be disposed of before trial.

1. Application dismissed. The fraudulent misrepresentation claims were fit for trial and could not safely be disposed of summarily.
2. CPR rule 24.2 requires the court to consider whether the claimant has no real prospect of succeeding and whether there is any other compelling reason for a trial. A realistic claim carries some degree of conviction and is more than merely arguable. The court must not conduct a mini-trial, but it need not accept every factual assertion without analysis.
3. The court must consider evidence reasonably expected to be available at trial. Summary judgment may be appropriate on a short point of law or construction where the evidence is sufficient, but complex factual disputes should ordinarily proceed to trial. Inferences from documents must be treated with particular caution where discovery and oral evidence may alter their significance.
4. The claims depended materially on disputed oral conversations, the parties’ credibility and the interpretation of a substantial body of documents. The documents might provide powerful material for cross-examination, but did not establish that the claimants’ evidence was inherently incredible or demonstrably worthless.
5. The two investments formed part of a continuous course of dealings. Since the first investment had to proceed to trial, the second investment should also be determined with the benefit of the full factual history. The remaining action and related petition would in any event require extensive evidence and factual findings. Granting summary judgment risked summary injustice and potentially inconsistent findings by different judges.
6. The later disclosure points raised after the hearing did not justify reopening the application. They would, at most, provide further material for cross-examination and would not alter the conclusion.