Mensah (t/a 37 Days 3 Hours 9 Minutes Creative) v Darroch & Ors

A statement of case must plead the material facts supporting each cause of action, particularly where fraud, conspiracy or misuse of confidential information is alleged. Similarity between ideas or proposals, without properly pleaded particulars and in the face of evidence of independent development, does not establish an arguable claim. A claim may be struck out where no amendment could give it a real prospect of success. Where a claim is totally without merit and the claimant has persistently pursued groundless applications, an extended civil restraint order may be appropriate under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.

The claimant alleged that the defendants had misrepresented the creative origin of the television programme SingDate, misused confidential information contained in two proposals, conspired to injure him, breached fiduciary duties and discriminated against him. The defendants applied to strike out the claim and for summary judgment. The claimant also applied for summary judgment.

The court considered whether the amended particulars disclosed legally recognisable causes of action, whether any defects could be cured by amendment, and whether the evidence demonstrated that the programme had been developed independently of the claimant's proposals. The court also considered whether an extended civil restraint order should be made.

1. The defendants' applications to strike out succeeded. The amended particulars did not plead the material facts necessary to establish fraudulent misrepresentation or deceit, breach of confidence, conspiracy or breach of fiduciary duty. In particular, the claimant did not adequately plead the alleged similarities between his proposals and SingDate or facts from which misuse of confidential information could properly be inferred.

2. For fraudulent misrepresentation or deceit, the necessary elements included a false representation, knowledge of or recklessness as to its falsity, an intention that the claimant rely on it, actual reliance and resulting loss. A claim for breach of confidence required confidential information, circumstances importing an obligation of confidence, unauthorised use and detriment. A third party required knowledge of the confidential character of the information. The alleged conspiracy did not add materially to the case because the pleaded unlawful acts were alleged breaches of confidence.

3. The evidence showed that the relevant programme had been developed independently from 2009. The documents relied on were genuine and pre-dated the claimant's submission of his proposal. The court could therefore not infer that any similarity resulted from misuse of the claimant's information. Two people may independently develop the same idea, and the general concepts of singing and dating were not, without more, capable of supporting the claim.

4. The court applied the requirements of Civil Procedure Rules 1998 rr 3.4 and 24.2. There was no alternative case which the claimant could plead with a real prospect of success. The whole claim was struck out. The claimant's application for summary judgment was dismissed, and the defendants' summary judgment applications did not require further consideration.

5. The claim was recorded as totally without merit. Given the claimant's persistent pursuit of serious allegations and applications without foundation, an extended civil restraint order was made for two years under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.

The judgment is a first-instance decision. The judgment records that Dingemans J dismissed an earlier injunction application on 13 September 2013 and that Bean J recorded two later applications as totally without merit on 14 November 2013.