Gregory & Anor v Moore & Ors

In a Part 8 claim, the court may require points of claim and defence to determine an issue falling within the claim, even where the Part 8 rules do not expressly provide for that procedure. The relevant provisions governing statements of case may apply with the necessary changes. The court may also use its case management and inherent powers to remove peripheral, emotive or inadequately particularised allegations without finding an abuse of process. The exercise should be directed to matters essential to the pleaded case and should take account of proportionality, including the likely cost, disclosure, evidence and trial time. A separate claim concerning estate assets should not be added to a forfeiture claim where it does not directly relate to the forfeiture issue and is a matter for the administrators rather than other beneficiaries.

The claim concerned the English estate of Barry Pring, who died intestate after being struck by a vehicle in Ukraine. His widow was alleged to have been complicit in an unlawful killing. The alleged unlawful killing was relevant to the operation of the Forfeiture Act 1982.

Following an order directing the defendants to particularise the forfeiture issue, the defendants served points of claim. At a case management hearing, the widow objected to several allegations concerning her conduct before and after the death, and to claims seeking an account of estate assets. The court had to decide which parts could properly remain within the forfeiture proceedings and whether permission should be granted for the additional account claim.

1. Procedure. The forfeiture issue was properly pursued within the existing Part 8 claim concerning distribution of the estate. Although Part 8 does not expressly permit the procedure used, points of claim and defence could be ordered for practical reasons. The relevant provisions of Part 16 and Practice Direction 16 applied with the necessary changes. This was consistent with the approach described in Sparkasse Koln Bonn v Cutts [2018] EWHC 1879 (Ch).
2. Case management. Facts relied upon in a claim must be stated clearly and concisely. The court’s powers under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, including rule 3.4(2) and rule 3.1(2)(m), together with its inherent jurisdiction, permitted it to prune a statement of case. A finding of abuse of process was unnecessary. The power should be exercised sparingly, but the court could restrict the pleaded case to matters essential to the issues and proportionate to the resources required.
3. Allegations struck out. The allegation concerning the widow’s later Kiev proceedings was peripheral to the February 2008 events, poorly particularised and likely to require disproportionate foreign evidence, translation, disclosure and trial time. It was struck out. The allegation that she had taken financial advantage of the deceased was emotive, wholly unparticularised and unlikely materially to advance the unlawful-killing case. Those words were also struck out, while the core allegations that she married for money and caused the death for financial benefit remained.
4. Account claim. Permission to pursue an account of estate assets was refused. The claim did not follow from or directly relate to the forfeiture issue, the forfeiture hearing should remain focused, and the issue was one for the administrators rather than the second and third defendants.
5. Permission to appeal was refused because the decisions disclosed no point of principle, had substantially left the case unaffected and had no real prospect of success or other compelling reason.