Medical Associates of Northern Virginia Inc., Profit Sharing Plan v Steward Malta Ltd & Ors

Summary judgment may be granted where a defence has no realistic prospect of success and no other compelling reason requires a trial. The court must avoid a mini-trial, but may decide a short point of law or construction where the evidence is sufficient.

Where a defence is possible but speculative and improbable, the court may impose a conditional order. The condition must serve an identified purpose and be proportionate and effective. In an exceptional case, payment into court or equivalent security may be required before the defence proceeds.

The claimant sought summary judgment under CPR Part 24 for the unpaid second tranche of a settlement sum. The defendants admitted non-payment but pleaded that they could neither admit nor deny the settlement deed’s legality or binding effect, relying on possible wrongdoing surrounding an earlier Maltese healthcare concession and seeking disclosure to investigate it.

The central issues were whether the pleaded position disclosed a real prospect of successfully defending the claim or another compelling reason for trial, and whether any conditional order should be made.

1. Summary judgment principles. The court applied the approach stated in Easyair Ltd (t/a Openair) v Opal Telecom Ltd [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch). The question was whether the proposed defence was realistic rather than fanciful. The court should not conduct a mini-trial, but need not accept unsupported factual assertions without analysis. It may determine a short point of law or construction where the evidence is sufficient and the parties have had a proper opportunity to argue it.
2. Existing defence. The signed settlement agreement and the admitted non-payment established the claimant’s entitlement on the face of the evidence. The defence pleaded no tenable answer. The possible illegality defence was speculative, insufficiently particularised and had emerged principally during oral argument.
3. Conditional order. Applying Abbot Investments (North Africa) Ltd v Nestoil Ltd [2017] EWHC 119 (Comm), the court held that a conditional order was available through CPR 3.1(3). The court had to identify the purpose of the condition and ensure that it was a proportionate and effective means of achieving that purpose. Such an order was exceptional where it might stifle a defence, but this defence was speculative, difficult and improbable.
4. The defendants were ordered to pay the full claim, including contractual interest, into court within 28 days, or provide alternative agreed security. The claimant was then to give the requested disclosure within 28 days, and the defendants were to produce a revised defence within a further 28 days. The summary judgment application was adjourned pending those steps.

First-instance application in the High Court (Commercial Court). No earlier decision in the same proceedings is stated.