Khosravi v British American Tobacco PLC & Ors

Serious allegations of wrongdoing must be pleaded with sufficient cogency and particularity to enable defendants to understand the case they must meet. A bare assertion is insufficient merely because it appears in a pleading.

On an application for summary judgment, the court may assess undisputed or incontrovertible evidence and determine whether the claim has more than a fanciful prospect of success. That exercise is not a mini-trial, but inherent implausibility alone is not a proper substitute for analysing the pleaded case and evidence.

Extensions of time for service under the Civil Procedure Rules require a good reason and must further the overriding objective. Lack of funding will not generally suffice, and extensions should not be granted as a formality.

The claimant brought a substantial claim against companies within the British American Tobacco group and other defendants, alleging that they were responsible, directly or vicariously, for serious assaults and related wrongdoing in 2008. The first and sixth defendants applied to set aside extensions of time for service, to strike out the claim, and alternatively for summary judgment.

The court considered whether the pleaded allegations were sufficiently clear and particularised, whether the evidence gave the claim a realistic prospect of success, and whether the extensions of time had been properly granted. The claimant also sought to rely on United Arab Emirates law, but the pleadings and evidence did not permit the court to determine any choice-of-law issue.

1. Strike-out and summary judgment. The claim form and particulars of claim were struck out under CPR 3.4, and summary judgment was entered under CPR 24.2. The pleading was woefully lacking in particulars, and the evidence disclosed no realistic prospect of success. The applications were therefore granted.
2. Where serious allegations of criminal behaviour are made, the need for cogency and particularity is correspondingly greater. Defendants are entitled to understand the nature of the charge and the facts said to establish their responsibility. The court may consider evidence of context when deciding whether a defective pleading could be cured by amendment, but the mere assertion of an allegation does not justify sending it to trial.
3. For summary judgment, the court must consider the evidence to assess whether the claim has more than a fanciful prospect of success. This is a legitimate assessment under CPR Part 24 and does not involve conducting a mini-trial. The contemporaneous documents showing that commercial relations had ended were inconsistent with the alleged continuing common interest and conspiracy.
4. The possibility of amendment did not justify an adjournment. No draft amended pleading was produced, and the court had no clear basis for concluding that the defects could be remedied in light of the evidence.
5. Although unnecessary to the result, the court held that an extension of time under CPR 7.6 requires a good reason and must be exercised consistently with the overriding objective. Lack of funding will not generally amount to such a reason. Time required to gather further evidence might justify a stay in an appropriate case, but did not justify delaying service for nearly 18 months. The extensions would otherwise have been set aside.
6. The court would hear further submissions, if necessary, on the final terms of the order.

First-instance decision. No earlier or subsequent appellate decision is stated in the judgment.