Pankim Kumar Patel v Minerva Services Delaware, Inc & Ors

Strike out and summary judgment are distinct but overlapping safeguards. A pleaded case should be struck out only where it discloses no reasonable grounds, and an amendable defect should ordinarily be given an opportunity for correction. Summary judgment requires the applicant to establish both that the respondent has no real prospect of success and that there is no compelling reason for trial. The initial evidential burden remains on the applicant. The court may evaluate evidence, but must avoid a mini-trial and should hesitate where fuller factual investigation may affect the result. Alternative cases may be pleaded, although serious allegations such as conspiracy, fraud and forgery require proper particulars. Interim findings ordinarily do not create a res judicata.

The claimant brought Part 8 proceedings seeking anti-suit and anti-arbitration relief concerning a Delaware arbitration and related proceedings. He later advanced a negative declaration, conspiracy claim and defence to a counterclaim by Minerva Services Delaware, Inc for approximately £9.48 million allegedly held on trust.

The first defendant applied to strike out the conspiracy claim and parts of the defence, alternatively seeking summary judgment and further particulars. The applications raised the adequacy of the pleadings, actionable loss, admissibility of references to earlier proceedings, the alleged trust arrangements, disputed deeds, assignments and the claimant’s alternative cases.

1. Conspiracy claim. The existing pleadings presented difficulties, but it was not appropriate to strike out the claim without allowing amendment. An actionable conspiracy based on unlawful means required primary facts from which unlawful means could properly be inferred. A lawful-means conspiracy required proper pleading of the predominant purpose or intention to injure. Allegations amounting to fraud required particularisation under Civil Procedure Rules 1998 PD16, paragraph 8. The claimant was directed to serve draft amended Points of Claim.
2. Loss and admissibility. The claimant had at least an arguable case that he had suffered recoverable loss, including costs connected with the Delaware proceedings. The court declined to decide conclusively whether the loss was actionable on a strike-out application. It was unnecessary to determine the full ambit of Hollington v F Hewthorn; paragraph 8 of the pleading was not wholly objectionable and was not struck out.
3. Summary judgment. The first defendant failed to discharge the initial burden under CPR rule 24.2. The evidence raised triable issues concerning whether the payments were trust monies, whether the relevant entities held them beneficially, whether the claimant held them on trust, the authenticity of the deeds and the validity of the assignments. The court was entitled to consider evidence reasonably expected to be available at trial, but could not resolve these factual disputes summarily. The claimant therefore had a real prospect of successfully defending the counterclaim.
4. Parts of the defence and further particulars. Alternative cases on forgery, illegality, undue influence, remuneration, gifts and expenses were not struck out at this stage. The court directed that the parties should clarify the individual payments and the basis on which each was said to be remuneration, gift, reimbursement or something else. The October 2022 Application was dismissed, save that the application concerning the Part 18 Request was not determined. The September 2022 Application was adjourned pending the proposed amendments.

The judgment records that the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the first defendant: [2023] EWCA Civ 118. It also refers to an earlier High Court judgment concerning interim relief: [2022] EWHC 970 (Ch).