Benjamin Luke Crushcov v Karen Louise Hyland & Ors

On applications for strike-out and reverse summary judgment, the court must first ask whether the pleaded facts, assumed to be provable, disclose a complete cause of action. If so, it must then assess whether the evidence shows that the claim has no real prospect of success and whether any compelling reason for trial exists.

Summary judgment may involve cautious evaluation of evidence, but the court must avoid a mini-trial. A litigant in person is entitled to judicial assistance in understanding the case, not to a lower legal or procedural standard or to reformulation of the pleaded claim. An unlawful means conspiracy requires, among other matters, combination, intention to injure, concerted action, unlawful means and loss. The claim was dismissed because it had no real prospect of establishing the necessary chain of events.

The claimant alleged that the first defendant stole his television drama script, passed it to the second defendant, and that the defendants used it in producing and broadcasting Britannia. The claim was put solely as unlawful means conspiracy. The claimant later abandoned allegations based on passing off, conspiracy to defraud, handling stolen goods and breach of confidence, but relied on alleged theft, breach of trust and fraudulent misrepresentations.

Each defendant applied for reverse summary judgment or, alternatively, strike-out. The central issues were whether the claim adequately pleaded unlawful means conspiracy and whether the evidence gave it a real prospect of success, particularly in relation to the alleged plagiarism, the defendants’ connections, the alleged theft and the asserted cover-up.

1. Applicable approach. The court distinguished the two procedural stages. On strike-out, the pleaded facts were assumed to be true and the question was whether they disclosed a legally recognisable claim. On summary judgment, the court could evaluate the evidence, cautiously and without conducting a mini-trial, to determine whether the claim had a realistic rather than fanciful prospect of success. The burden rested on the applicants, and there had to be no other compelling reason for trial.
2. Litigant in person. The court was required to take care to understand the claimant’s case, but the ordinary law applied. The court could not advise him, confer procedural privileges, or reformulate the case into a stronger one.
3. Unlawful means conspiracy. The claimant had to establish a combination or understanding, a shared object and concerted action, intention to injure, unlawful means, and loss caused by the conspiracy. The intention to injure need not be predominant, but foresight of damage was not itself equivalent to intention.
4. Pleading defects. The pleaded claim did not identify a conspiracy involving the alleged theft and use of the script. It described the alleged conspiracy principally as a later cover-up. It also failed adequately to particularise the alleged misrepresentations and fraud, failed to plead the necessary intention for an offence under section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006, and did not sufficiently plead that statements made by the second defendant’s company were made as his agent.
5. Evidence and outcome. The similarities relied upon were expressed at too high a level of generality and did not provide a real prospect of proving plagiarism. The timeline did not establish that the Butterworth brothers lacked time to produce original scripts. The photograph relied upon did not support the alleged connection between the first and second defendants. Although the alleged visit and theft could not alone be resolved without a trial, the claimant had no real prospect of proving all the necessary issues cumulatively. There was no other compelling reason for a trial. Reverse summary judgment was granted to all three defendants and the claim was dismissed.