Verdi Law Group P.C. v BNP Paribas S.A. & Ors

Summary judgment may be granted where the evidence demonstrates that a claimant has no real prospect of success, even if the claim raises allegations of fraud or disputed factual issues. The court must avoid conducting a mini-trial, but it is not required to accept factual assertions without analysis, particularly where they are contradicted by compelling contemporary or expert evidence.

The court should also consider evidence reasonably expected to be available at trial. A trial is unnecessary where the material relied on is demonstrably inauthentic and there is no realistic prospect that further evidence will alter that conclusion. An alleged conflict between co-defendants will not ordinarily constitute another compelling reason for trial unless the requirements for inconsistent or binding determinations are established.

Verdi, a Californian law firm, claimed very substantial sums arising from an alleged transaction involving a standby letter of credit purportedly issued by BNP Paribas and backed by cash held for Sparx Asset Management. The claims included inducing breach of contract, conspiracy, breach of tortious duty and, alternatively, fraudulent misrepresentation based on an email said to have been sent by a BNP Paribas employee.

BNP Paribas applied for summary judgment under CPR 24.2(a), alternatively to strike out the claim. It contended that the alleged bank account, SWIFT messages and emails were fabricated. Verdi argued that the authenticity issues should be resolved at trial and that the position of other defendants created another compelling reason under CPR 24.2(b).

Application granted. Summary judgment was entered for BNP Paribas. The alternative strike-out application did not require determination.

1. The governing approach was that in Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom Ltd [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch), as supplemented by the consideration of evidence reasonably expected to be available at trial described in Foglia v The Family Officer Ltd [2021] EWHC 650 (Comm). The court must not conduct a mini-trial, but may analyse the evidence and reject factual assertions which have no real substance, especially where contradicted by contemporary documents.
2. There was no real prospect of establishing the primary case. BNP Paribas’ evidence, which was not materially challenged, showed that the alleged Sparx account did not exist, Sparx was not a BNP Paribas client, and the account screenshot had been doctored. SWIFT confirmed that the messages relied on could not have been transmitted through its network, and the alleged recipient banks confirmed that they had not sent or received them.
3. The alternative misrepresentation case also had no real prospect of success. Although the court deprecated attempts to bypass CPR Part 35, it was appropriate to consider the non-compliant report alongside the compliant expert report where the latter directly addressed and criticised it. The compliant evidence established that the relevant emails had been spoofed.
4. The allegations of fraud did not prevent summary judgment. The caution concerning cogent evidence in King v Steifel [2021] EWHC 1045 (Comm) was satisfied by the compelling evidence before the court.
5. There was no other compelling reason for a trial. The BVL defendants had not positively asserted the authenticity of the documents, there was no relevant conflict of interest, and the principles discussed in Munni Bibi v Triloki Nath (1931) LR 58 Ind App 158 did not apply.

First-instance decision. The judgment records earlier United States proceedings which were voluntarily discontinued, followed by the English proceedings issued by claim form dated 23 October 2022.