John Wyllie & Ors v Dr Sandradee Theresa Joseph & Ors

A statement of case must identify concisely and coherently the material facts necessary to establish a complete cause of action. A pleading that is prolix, repetitive or incomprehensible may be struck out for disclosing no reasonable grounds, abuse of process and non-compliance with procedural rules. After repeated failures to plead a sustainable case, the court may strike out the claim as a whole, considering prospects of amendment, proportionality, court resources, prejudice and the claimant’s conduct.

The claimants sued a barrister, her clerk and her professional indemnity insurer, alleging that the barrister negligently drafted defective particulars of claim in earlier proceedings against Arc Finance Group Ltd. They claimed exceptionally large sums for lost commissions, insurance proceeds, wasted expenditure and related losses.

The defendants accepted that the barrister’s pleading did not disclose a sustainable claim and applied to strike out both the present particulars and the claim itself. The issues were whether the pleading disclosed a legally recognisable claim, complied with procedural requirements, constituted an abuse of process, and whether a further opportunity to amend should be allowed.

1. Disposition. The Particulars of Claim and the claim as a whole were struck out. Further consequential relief was reserved.
2. Under CPR 16.4(1)(a), particulars of claim must contain a concise statement of the facts relied upon, including all facts necessary to constitute a complete cause of action. CPR 3.4(2) permits strike-out where a statement discloses no reasonable grounds, is abusive or likely to obstruct the just disposal of proceedings, or fails to comply with a rule, practice direction or order.
3. The pleading failed to identify what case the barrister should have pleaded against Arc or Liberty, the material supporting it, or how it could have succeeded. It also failed to plead any comprehensible case against the clerk or insurer. Its length, repetition, argumentative presentation and lack of intelligible particulars prevented the defendants from knowing the case to meet and preparing for trial.
4. The court considered whether another amendment should be permitted. Relevant considerations included whether a sustainable and factually consistent case could be pleaded, proportionality, court resources, prejudice, costs recoverability and the claimant’s conduct. There was no reason to believe that a viable underlying claim could be formulated. The speculative expectation-loss claim, the absence of a realistic insurable interest for the proposed policy values, the lack of a viable unpaid-commission claim and the inadequately pleaded wasted-expenditure claim supported final strike-out.
5. The claimants’ repeated and wasteful pleadings, extensive correspondence and attachments, obstructive conduct and threats further justified bringing the litigation to an end.

First-instance decision. The judgment records earlier proceedings and appellate involvement concerning the underlying dispute, but this claim was determined in the Commercial Court on the defendants’ strike-out application.