Singh v Singh & Anor

On interlocutory applications, costs remain in the court’s discretion even where a defendant abandons summary judgment. The court may order costs in the case where an application has served a useful purpose, including clarifying the scope of the claim. A pleading must identify the property and relief in issue sufficiently to enable the opposing party to understand and answer the case. Under CPR Part 18, the court may require formal answers explaining how the pleaded case is reconciled with matters raised by the other side. It may also order disclosure of documents referred to in an expert statement, subject to privilege and the limits of CPR Part 35.

The claimant, a father, alleged that property acquired by the family was held under a constructive trust arising from the Hindu Joint Family System and Mitakshara principles. The first defendant, his son, disputed the alleged family arrangement and applied in relation to summary judgment costs, the adequacy of the pleading, further information and specific disclosure. The summary judgment application was no longer pursued, but it had clarified that the claimant did not claim shares held in family trusts. The court had to determine the appropriate interlocutory orders and whether the claimant’s case was sufficiently defined for the litigation to proceed.

1. Costs. The court rejected the submission that abandonment of the summary judgment application made an order for the first defendant’s costs in the case inevitable. Costs remained discretionary. The application had served a useful purpose by eliciting clarification that shares held in the family trusts were not claimed. The appropriate order was that both parties’ costs of the application be costs in the case.
2. Pleading and further information. The claimant was not directed how to plead his case, but the existing pleading did not enable the first defendant properly to meet it. The assets said to fall within the alleged Hindu family trust directly affected whether a trust existed at all. Their identification was also necessary because the inquiry might affect other family members and disponees. The claimant was therefore ordered to answer the request for further information. Formal answers were required under CPR Part 18, notwithstanding reliance on matters in a witness statement.
3. Disclosure. The parties relied on Expandable Ltd v Rubin [2008] EWCA Civ 59. The claimant accepted that documents referred to in the witness statement should be produced, subject to privilege and objections under CPR Part 35 rule 10. The scope of those objections was left for determination if necessary.
4. Case management. The court considered it appropriate for the existence of the alleged Hindu Joint Family System trust to be dealt with as a preliminary issue, followed by a case management conference after the formal answers had been provided. The parties were left to determine whether the preliminary issue should be framed at the conference or ordered separately.