Robin Joseph Lee & Anor v National Westminster Bank PLC

On an application for strike-out, summary judgment or permission to amend, the court must ask whether the claim has a realistic prospect of success and whether there is another compelling reason for trial. The court must avoid conducting a mini-trial, particularly where material evidence is likely to emerge at trial. A proposed amendment must be arguable, coherent and properly particularised.

Claims may proceed where factual disputes, documents or evidence uniquely held by the defendant require investigation. However, a claim should not proceed where essential causation is absent from the pleading and the pleaded losses have no real prospect of being linked to the alleged breach. Amendments may be permitted conditionally upon further particulars and disclosure.

The claim arose from alleged failures by National Westminster Bank PLC concerning the operation and renaming of a bank account used by Robin Joseph Lee and Leeway Services Ltd, the handling of complaints, and the provision of credit information to credit reference agencies.

The Bank applied under CPR rules 3.4(2)(a) and (b) for strike-out and alternatively under CPR rule 24.2 for summary judgment. The Claimants sought permission to serve substantially amended particulars advancing a complaints claim, a Name Change Agreement claim and a negligent misstatement claim.

The central issues were whether the amended claims had a real prospect of success, whether their causation and loss were adequately pleaded, and whether any part should be struck out or permitted only subject to further information.

1. Application and governing principles. The Bank’s application succeeded only in part. The court applied the real-prospect test under CPR rule 24.2 and the equivalent strike-out principles under CPR rule 3.4(2). The court must distinguish a realistic claim from a fanciful one, must not conduct a mini-trial, and must consider evidence reasonably expected to be available at trial. A short point of law or construction may nevertheless be decided summarily where the necessary material is before the court.
2. Complaints claim. Permission was granted to amend the claim alleging breach of an express complaints obligation and implied duties to act fairly. The word “fair” was not too vague, and “determine” was sufficiently interchangeable with “resolve” in the contractual context. The pleaded case that proper handling of the complaints would have resulted in waiver or refund of charges was not unarguable.
3. Name Change Agreement claim. The scope of the alleged agreement could not be determined summarily. The change from reliance on a credit card to reliance on a credit facility raised issues suitable for cross-examination. LSL’s daily loss claim was not struck out immediately, but could proceed only if detailed calculations, Amazon’s trading terms, the confidential settlement agreement and information concerning credit for the £600,000 settlement payment were provided by 4pm on 31 July 2024. Mr Lee’s claim for nominal damages was refused because the alleged trading loss was suffered by LSL.
4. Negligent misstatement claim. The proposed duty to provide credit information that was fair and accurate was sufficiently arguable. However, the claim failed because it did not plead particular refusals of credit facilities caused by any reduction in credit scores. The new heads of loss therefore lacked a pleaded causal connection. The negligent misstatement claim was not permitted to proceed and all references to it were to be excised.
5. The Claimants were permitted to serve the draft amended particulars subject to those limitations and conditions. Consequential directions and costs were left for further consideration.