Devon and Cornwall Autistic Community Trust v The Cornwall Council

Strike-out and summary judgment applications may be determined at the commencement of trial where the circumstances are sufficiently unusual and the court can deal with the matter justly. A statement of case must provide coherent and adequately particularised facts, especially where the claim depends on detailed allegations of underfunding. Failure to comply with successive orders requiring particulars may constitute both breach of court order and abuse of process. Striking out remains a last resort, but it may be proportionate where earlier opportunities to remedy the defects have been exhausted. Summary judgment requires consideration of whether the claim has a real, rather than fanciful, prospect of success. The court must avoid a mini-trial, but may grant judgment where the evidence makes success merely illusory.

The claimant, a provider of care and residential accommodation for adults with autistic disorders, claimed damages for alleged breach of contract or restitution. It alleged that the defendant local authority had underfunded services provided to eight service users from 2006 onwards. The claim was repeatedly amended and was subject to orders requiring detailed particulars. The claimant failed to provide the required particulars in relation to the service users and served evidence and schedules referring to sums substantially exceeding the pleaded claim.

On the first day of the listed trial, the defendant applied under Part 3.4 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 to strike out the statement of case and under Part 24.2 for summary judgment. The central issues were whether the pleading disclosed a coherent case, whether the failures constituted non-compliance or abuse of process, and whether the evidence gave the claimant a real prospect of success.

1. Strike-out. The pleaded case was just sufficient to disclose bare coherence, so strike-out was not justified under Part 3.4(2)(a). However, the schedules served on behalf of the claimant failed to comply with the successive orders requiring particulars of the services, the service users’ assessed needs, the alleged shortfall and the evidential basis for the sums claimed. The order concerning PB1 was not confined to that service user. The purpose of the order was to enable the defendant and the court to understand the underfunding case generally.
2. The claimant’s argument that the later order replaced the earlier orders was rejected. The orders had to be read together. The claimant had therefore failed to comply with three successive court orders. The schedules also amounted to an abuse of the court’s process, or were otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings, because they provided only bald heads of cost and unexplained document references in a claim which depended on a detailed quantum meruit case.
3. Striking out was a last resort and the court had to consider whether a less severe and proportionate course was available. The possibility of an adjournment had already been rejected, and the claimant had been given a final opportunity to put its case in order. In those circumstances, striking out the statement of case was the only proper step.
4. Summary judgment. The court applied the Part 24.2 test: whether the claimant had no real prospect of success and whether there was any other compelling reason for a trial. The court did not conduct a mini-trial or decide the case merely by balancing conflicting evidence.
5. The claimant’s evidence did not provide a realistic basis for establishing that the defendant had failed to pay a reasonable price. The contemporaneous documents showed negotiated fees and regular consideration of payment issues. The finance manager’s evidence lacked personal knowledge, did not explain the service users’ needs, and appeared to undermine the claim. The prospects of success were therefore illusory. Summary judgment was granted against the claimant, irrespective of the strike-out.