Mohamedalmas Adam v Safvan Ayub Adam

The power to strike out a statement of case is discretionary and ordinarily represents a last resort. A pleading should be struck out for vagueness or incoherence only where the opposing party cannot reasonably understand the case to be met or prepare a response. Differences in the description of an agreement do not justify strike out where the pleaded case remains coherent and intelligible. A failure to provide every detail required by the rules may be addressed through further information or at trial rather than summary disposal.

A reference to a breach as repudiatory does not, without more, make a partnership claim unintelligible where dissolution is alleged to have occurred by notice. Requests for further information must be concise, reasonably necessary and proportionate.

The claimant, one of two brothers, alleged that they had entered into a business partnership and that the partnership had later been dissolved. He claimed an account of the partnership assets and his 50% share.

The defendant applied under CPR 3.4 to strike out parts of the Particulars of Claim concerning an alleged 2023 Agreement and the alleged repudiatory breach of the partnership agreement. He also applied under Part 18 for further information, including formalised responses and details of alleged intellectual property.

The central issues were whether the pleading was incoherent, abusive or insufficiently particularised, and whether the further information sought was reasonably necessary and proportionate.

1. Strike out. The Strike Out Application was dismissed. Under CPR 3.4(2), strike out is a discretionary and draconian power, ordinarily a last resort. The court considered whether the challenged pleading disclosed a legally recognisable and intelligible case.
2. 2023 Agreement. The pleading did not provide every detail contemplated by CPR PD16 paragraph 7.4, nor did it separate offer, acceptance and consideration in the manner sought by the defendant. Nevertheless, it set out a coherent case based on emails, conversations and subsequent conduct. The defendant could understand the case and prepare a defence. The alleged differences between the Particulars of Claim, correspondence, responses to further information and the Freezing Order Affidavit were not so serious or irreconcilable as to amount to abuse, unreasonable vagueness or an altered case.
3. Repudiatory breach. The pleading did not allege that repudiatory breach automatically dissolved the partnership. It alleged that the breaches explained the claimant’s decision to dissolve the partnership by notice. The description of the breaches as repudiatory might be challenged at argument, but it did not justify strike out.
4. Further information. The Part 18 application was refused. The remaining requests were not shown to be reasonably necessary and proportionate. The defendant already had sufficient information to understand the case, including the nature, holder and subject matter of the alleged intellectual property. The parties should resolve such matters between themselves.
5. The defendant was required to answer the claim. No order was made on the Further Information Application.