Clutterbuck v Brook Martin & Co (a firm) & Anor

A statement of case may be struck out where it is prolix, unintelligible, insufficiently particularised, abusive, or otherwise obstructs the just disposal of proceedings. Serious allegations such as fraud, dishonesty or concealment require a proper factual basis and particulars; a party cannot wait to see whether evidence emerges at disclosure or trial. A later claim may also be abusive where it seeks to relitigate findings already made or advances an inconsistent case, assessed by a broad merits-based evaluation of all the circumstances. Failure to comply with case-management guidance concerning related proceedings does not automatically require strike-out. On an interim application, limitation issues may be determined summarily where the claimant has no realistic prospect of relying on postponement provisions and there is no compelling reason for a trial.

The claimant brought proceedings against a solicitors’ firm and its partner alleging breach of contract, professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of trust arising from property transactions and related funding arrangements. The defendants applied to strike out the particulars of claim under CPR 3.4 or obtain reverse summary judgment under CPR Part 24. The claimant sought permission to amend, rely on expert evidence and obtain documents connected with an ongoing regulatory investigation, and sought adjournments and a stay.

The pleadings had repeatedly been criticised as prolix, unclear, insufficiently particularised and inconsistent with findings in earlier proceedings involving related property transactions. The central issues were whether the claim was properly pleaded, abusive, statute-barred, and whether the claimant should receive a further opportunity to amend.

1. Strike-out and pleading requirements. The particulars of claim and proposed amended particulars were struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(b) and (c). A statement of case must be clear, concise and comprehensible, and must contain the material facts necessary to establish the cause of action. Extensive narrative, vague cross-references, evidence instead of material facts, and unparticularised allegations made it impossible for the defendants to plead a defence.
2. Fraud and dishonesty. Allegations of fraud, dishonesty or deliberate concealment require a proper factual basis and particulars of the primary facts relied on. Facts consistent with innocence or negligence do not suffice. The claimant could not reserve such allegations pending disclosure, cross-examination or a regulatory report.
3. Abuse of process. The claims concerning cash transfers, property transfers and related joint ventures constituted a collateral attack on findings in earlier proceedings and/or advanced a case inconsistent with the claimant’s previous case. Applying a broad merits-based approach, the proceedings misused the court process and caused manifest unfairness to the defendants. The separate Aldi Stores ground was not independently sufficient: engagement of the relevant case-management guidance did not automatically make a claim abusive, and the court was not satisfied that pursuing the claim itself amounted to unjust harassment on that ground alone.
4. Related proceedings. Parties should disclose future claims arising from overlapping facts or evidence so that the court can decide whether and how they should be case-managed. The purpose is to promote finality and efficient use of resources, reflected in section 49(2) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The guidance did not, however, require automatic consolidation or justify strike-out without the broader merits assessment.
5. Limitation and summary judgment. The claim against the second defendant was impermissibly added after the limitation period because the conditions in CPR 19.5 were not met. The Cliveden Place, Funding and Cash Transfers claims were also statute-barred. The claimant had no realistic prospect of relying on sections 14A or 32 of the Limitation Act 1980, and there was no compelling reason for a trial. Reverse summary judgment was therefore granted in addition to strike-out.
6. Outcome. The defendants’ application succeeded. The claim was struck out and reverse summary judgment entered. The claimant’s applications for further amendment, expert evidence, disclosure-related relief, a stay and adjournment were not pursued or did not justify allowing the proceedings to continue.

First-instance decision. The judgment records earlier related proceedings, including [2017] EWCA Civ 137 and [2017] EWCA Civ 158, but this was not an appeal.