Anthony Alan Gladwin v RSM UK Restructuring Advisory LLP & Ors

A claim may be struck out under CPR 3.4(2) where it is incoherent, discloses no legally recognisable cause of action, is abusive, or involves cumulative procedural failures. Allegations of fraud must identify the particular civil cause of action, plead its elements and primary facts with full particularity, and be supported by credible material. Reliance on the Fraud Act 2006 does not create a civil cause of action or relax those requirements.

A later claim may be abusive where it substantially repeats an earlier claim, collaterally attacks an earlier judgment, or amounts to forum shopping. A claim against former administrators requires permission under paragraph 75(6) of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986, supported by a reasonably meritorious case and a possible benefit to the insolvent estate. Persistent totally meritless claims justified a three-year extended civil restraint order.

The claimant, the former sole shareholder and director of Killean Estates Limited, brought proceedings against RSM UK Restructuring Advisory LLP and three former administrators of the company. He alleged that the company’s loans, administration, sale of its Scottish estate and subsequent dissolution resulted from fraud, conspiracy, conflicts of interest and undervalue sales.

The claim was the claimant’s second attempt in this jurisdiction and followed a substantially similar Scottish claim. An earlier claim had been struck out in [2024] EWHC 3054 (Ch) for procedural and substantive defects. The defendants applied to strike out the new claim under CPR 3.4(2)(a) to (c), certify it as totally without merit and obtain an extended civil restraint order. The central issues were whether the claim disclosed a viable civil cause of action, whether it was abusive, whether permission was required to sue the former administrators, and whether restraint was appropriate.

1. Strike out. The claim was struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a), (b) and (c) and certified as totally without merit. There was no juridical relationship providing a basis for the claim against RSM. The claimant had also issued proceedings against former administrators without the permission required by paragraph 75(6) of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986.
2. Fraud allegations. The claim did not identify a recognised civil cause of action in fraud or conspiracy. The Fraud Act 2006 concerns criminal fraud and does not itself provide a civil cause of action. Re-labelling the earlier allegations as criminal fraud did not alter their substance. The claimant had failed to plead the relevant elements, primary facts and particulars of any inference of dishonesty, and had produced no credible evidence supporting the allegations.
3. Permission and benefit. Permission to pursue claims against the former administrators would have required a reasonably meritorious case and a possible benefit for the company’s insolvent estate. Neither threshold was met. The substantial secured and unsecured creditor shortfall meant that there was no conceivable benefit to the claimant unless a recovery greatly exceeding the liabilities could first be established, for which there was no credible evidential basis.
4. Abuse of process. The claim substantially repeated the Scottish claim and the earlier claim, sought the same relief and allegations, and was a collateral attack on the earlier judgment. It was therefore abusive under CPR 3.4(2)(b) and within the principle in Henderson v Henderson. The claimant’s assertion of new evidence was rejected because the material was known or reasonably obtainable earlier.
5. Procedural failures and discretion. The claimant had breached multiple rules, practice directions and statutory requirements, including requirements concerning service, pleadings, fraud allegations and permission to sue the administrators. Their cumulative effect independently supported strike out. Applying the overriding objective, continuing the proceedings would waste court resources and unfairly prejudice the defendants.
6. Extended civil restraint order. The claimant’s persistent pursuit of substantially identical, unmeritorious claims and applications across two jurisdictions created a high risk of repetition. An extended civil restraint order was therefore made for the maximum period of three years, requiring permission from a High Court Judge of the Chancery Division before issuing any claim or application concerning the same or substantially the same subject matter.

First-instance decision. The judgment records that an earlier claim was struck out by ICC Judge Barber in [2024] EWHC 3054 (Ch), and that permission to appeal was refused by Mr Justice Meade. The present claim was struck out and an extended civil restraint order was imposed.