Mohammed Dewji v Prudential International Assurance plc

On an application for strike out or summary judgment, the court must apply the prescribed rules-based tests. The length of the hearing is not itself a legal test, although a substantial hearing may indicate that the claim requires trial.

A claim has no real prospect of success where the evidence establishes that it is statute-barred, lacks an essential element such as reasonable reliance or causal loss, or rests on a factual case contradicted by contemporaneous documents. Deliberate concealment under section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 requires concealment of a fact relevant to the cause of action and an intention to conceal it. The mistake gateway is confined to claims for relief from consequences of a mistake.

Prudential appealed against an order of Mr Recorder Kelly KC in the County Court at Central London dated 24 January 2025. The Recorder had dismissed applications to strike out or obtain summary judgment on Mr Dewji’s claims concerning a life assurance and critical illness policy issued in 2000.

The claims alleged breach of contract, misrepresentation, negligence and breaches of FCA Conduct of Business Rules. They concerned the refusal of waiver of premium cover, policy loadings, information given to an Irish financial services ombudsman in 2012–2013, and an alleged retrospective travel loading in 2021. The central issues were whether the claims had a real prospect of success, whether limitation was extended under section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980, and whether the ombudsman’s determination prevented relitigation.

1. Appeal allowed. The Recorder had used imprecise language by stating that Mr Dewji “may well have” a real prospect of success, but this was treated as a slip rather than a misdirection. Grounds 1 and 2 therefore failed. The time taken to argue an application is not a strike-out or summary-judgment test, although it may be indicative that a claim is unsuitable for summary disposal.
2. The applicable tests were those in CPR r 3.4(2)(a) and CPR r 24.3(a): whether the statement of case disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and whether the claimant had no real prospect of succeeding. The court could evaluate the evidence without conducting a mini-trial and could draw a line where the claim had no realistic prospect of success.
3. The section 32(1)(b) case failed. Although the reasons for the refusal of waiver of premium cover and the loading could arguably have been deliberately concealed, those reasons were not facts relevant to the pleaded causes of action, which challenged the justification for the terms themselves. In any event, the relevant matters could have been discovered with reasonable diligence. Section 32(1)(c) did not assist because the contractual claim was not an action for relief from the consequences of a mistake.
4. The waiver-of-premium claim had no real prospect of success. The benefit was excluded as part of the original offer and acceptance, rather than removed in breach of clause 8.3. The loading claim was also statute-barred. The documents showed that the loading was for travel, not medical, reasons, and that the existence of the loading was disclosed by the Special Provisions.
5. The claims concerning charges and related COBS and negligence allegations were statute-barred and, insofar as they concerned matters determined by the Irish Ombudsman, subject to res judicata. The parties’ voluntary submission to the Ombudsman, whose determination was final subject to a statutory appeal, was sufficient for the res judicata principles to apply.
6. The 2013 misrepresentation claim had no real prospect of success because it pleaded no reasonable reliance or causal loss. The losses claimed arose from the loading applied from inception, not from reliance on the later statement that the loading was medical.
7. The alleged retrospective travel loading in 2021 was contradicted by the contemporaneous underwriting records and the Ombudsman’s determination. The evidence showed a change in the explanation for an existing loading, not the creation of a new loading with retrospective effect.
8. The claim was struck out and judgment entered for Prudential. Mr Dewji was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the hearing before the Recorder, on the standard basis, with a payment on account of £20,000.

• High Court, Chancery Appeals List (ChD): Appeal from the County Court at Central London order of 24 January 2025. Appeal allowed; claim struck out and judgment entered for Prudential.
• County Court at Central London: Mr Recorder Kelly KC dismissed Prudential’s applications for strike out and summary judgment on 24 January 2025.