SNV & Ors v Moutaz Al Khayyat & Ors

A claimant may abuse the court’s process by issuing or maintaining proceedings without an intention to bring them to a conclusion. Mere delay is insufficient. The court must assess objectively the claimant’s reasons for the delay, its duration and the surrounding circumstances.

Where abuse is established, the court must decide whether strike-out is just and proportionate under the applicable procedural framework. Relevant considerations include the claimant’s explanation and evidence, the age and staleness of the claim, prejudice to the defendant, the use of court resources and compliance with the overriding objective. A claimant’s failure to progress proceedings after the reason for an earlier procedural indulgence has disappeared may support an inference that the claim has been warehoused.

More than 330 anonymised claimants brought claims alleging loss and personal injury arising from the financing or facilitation of al-Nusra Front’s activities. The claim form was issued in June 2020, but particulars of claim were never served on the Third Defendant.

An earlier order extended service dates until 28 days after determination of a jurisdiction challenge in related proceedings. Those proceedings were ultimately struck out or discontinued, so the jurisdiction challenge was never determined. The claimants then took no substantive steps for about 15 months, despite repeated correspondence and an application to strike out. They filed no evidence opposing the application.

The central issues were whether the inactivity amounted to abuse of process and, if so, whether the claim should be struck out.

1. Abuse established. The claimants’ inactivity from July 2024 to the hearing in October 2025 amounted to a Grovit-type abuse of process. The earlier inactivity between issue of the claim and July 2024 was not itself abusive because the jurisdiction challenge remained extant and the claimants’ conduct was consistent with awaiting its outcome.
2. Under Asturion Fondation v Alibrahm, mere delay does not necessarily constitute abuse. The court must consider objectively the reason for the delay, having regard to its duration. A claimant’s incompetence may explain delay without amounting to this form of abuse, but the absence of evidence or a credible explanation may support the inference that there was no good reason.
3. The claimants had no adequate explanation for failing to act once the related proceedings had ended. Their legal representatives should have monitored those proceedings and recognised that the rationale for the earlier service timetable had disappeared. The claim had never been stayed.
4. Strike-out ordered. The court declined to resolve the conflict between Watford Control Instruments Ltd v Brown and Lloyd v Hayward concerning the continuing relevance of the Chest Hospital requirement for compelling reasons. Either approach led to strike-out here. Under CPR 3.4(2)(b), read with the overriding objective in CPR 1.1 and the parties’ duty under CPR 1.3, strike-out was just and proportionate.
5. The absence of evidence, the claim’s age and increasing staleness, the Third Defendant’s prejudice and reputational exposure, and the disproportionate use of court resources all supported strike-out. The claimants’ belated proposal to serve particulars within three months did not provide sufficient confidence that the proceedings would be pursued responsibly.