KAPOOR v MIZUHO INTERNATIONAL PLC

Strike out and summary judgment may prevent an inadequately particularised or evidentially unsupported claim from consuming disproportionate court resources. A pleading that remains vague or incoherent after an order for further information may be struck out. On summary judgment, the court asks whether the claim has a realistic prospect of success, without conducting a mini-trial, but it need not accept inherently implausible assertions or defer judgment in the hope that evidence may emerge.

Common-law claims concerning the manner of dismissal, including reputational loss arising from dismissal, fall within the Johnson exclusion zone and are generally unavailable apart from wrongful dismissal. Private statements made by an employer to the employee about the dismissal cannot ordinarily found a claim for loss allegedly caused by reliance by third parties.

The claimant had been employed by the defendant in a proposed FCA-regulated role and was dismissed shortly after starting work for alleged gross misconduct. He claimed damages arising from the dismissal, alleged statements about it, entries or records said to have affected his regulatory employment prospects, and alleged offers of employment that prospective employers later withdrew.

The defendant applied under CPR Part 3.4(2) for strike out and summary judgment. It relied on the claimant’s inadequate particulars, his failure to substantiate the alleged offers and withdrawals, the Johnson exclusion zone, and the absence of any proper basis for loss said to result from private statements made to him. The central issues were whether the pleaded claims disclosed viable causes of action and whether the evidence showed a realistic prospect of success.

1. The defendant’s application was allowed. The relevant parts of the claim were struck out or dismissed summarily. The claim concerning alleged statements to Credit Agricole was to proceed separately.

2. Under CPR Part 3.4(2), a statement of case may be struck out where it discloses no reasonable grounds, is abusive, or is likely to obstruct the just disposal of proceedings. Unreasonably vague or incoherent pleadings may be struck out. Where the claimant has already been ordered to provide further information, the court must consider whether the response has cured the defects. The claimant’s Part 18 response had not done so.

3. For summary judgment, the court applied the principles collected in Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom Ltd [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch). The question was whether the claim had a realistic, rather than fanciful, prospect of success. The court must avoid a mini-trial, but it need not accept assertions at face value and may consider whether they are inherently implausible or contradicted by the available material. Evidence reasonably expected to be available at trial must be considered, although a bare hope that something may turn up is insufficient.

4. The pleaded duties concerning the fairness of the dismissal, the investigation and disciplinary process, and reputational damage arising from dismissal fell within the Johnson exclusion zone. Applying Johnson v Unisys Ltd [2001] ICR 480 and Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Trust and Botham v Ministry of Defence [2012] ICR 201, such claims could not proceed as common-law claims, subject to the recognised distinction for wrongful dismissal. The claimant had pursued neither a contractual wrongful-dismissal claim nor an unfair-dismissal claim in the Employment Tribunal.

5. The alleged formal offers and subsequent withdrawals were unsupported by offer letters, correspondence, witness evidence or other contemporaneous material. The court was entitled to conclude that the claims had no realistic prospect of success. Private statements made by the defendant to the claimant could not provide a basis for loss said to have resulted from reliance by prospective employers.

6. The court considered that allowing the unsupported and over-complex claims to continue would waste substantial resources. Consequential orders and costs were to be considered after the parties submitted draft orders and any costs schedule.