Gunaratnam Kirupakaran v Mahomed Tehseen Ibrahim & Ors

A statement of case must identify the facts, duties, breaches, causation and loss relied on against each defendant. General allegations of statutory, common-law or professional duties are insufficient. A litigant in person must comply with the procedural rules, although the court should facilitate meaningful participation.

Strike out is appropriate where the pleaded facts disclose no legally recognisable claim. Summary judgment is appropriate where the claim has no realistic prospect of success and no compelling reason for trial. Party wall surveyors perform a quasi-judicial dispute-resolution role. They do not ordinarily assume design, construction, supervision or protective-work obligations towards an adjoining owner.

The claimant, owner of 166 Croydon Road, brought a claim for approximately £1.4 million against the owners and personnel associated with adjoining development works, the main contractor and the two party wall surveyors. He alleged structural damage, negligence, nuisance and breaches of statutory and professional duties.

Following an earlier order granting an opportunity to replead, the claimant served Amended Particulars of Claim. The defendants applied under CPR 3.4(2) and CPR 24.3 to strike out the claim or obtain summary judgment. The central issues were whether the amended pleading complied with the Unless Order and disclosed complete claims with a real prospect of success against any defendant.

1. Disposition. The applications to strike out the claim and/or obtain summary judgment were granted. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendants’ costs.
2. Pleading requirements. Under CPR 16.4(1), a claimant must plead the facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action. The pleading must identify, for each defendant, the relevant duty, its scope, the acts or omissions constituting breach, the causative mechanism and the loss claimed. The Amended Particulars of Claim did none of these things and failed to comply with the Unless Order.
3. Strike out and summary judgment. The court applied the principles that a claim may be struck out where it discloses no legally recognisable cause of action, assuming the pleaded facts to be true, and that summary judgment requires a realistic prospect of success. The court must avoid a mini-trial, consider evidence reasonably available at trial and hesitate before finally determining issues requiring fuller factual investigation. Where all necessary evidence is available on a short point of law, the court should decide it.
4. Individual defendants and contractor. The pleading did not identify a legal or evidential basis for personal liability of the company’s directors, or any duty owed by the contract administrator. It also failed to identify the contractor’s duty, breach, responsibility for design or temporary works, causation or recoverable loss.
5. Party wall surveyors. The court applied the analysis in Gyle-Thomspon v Wall Street (Properties) Ltd and Gray v Elite Town Management. Party wall surveyors have a quasi-judicial dispute-resolution role and do not assume design obligations towards adjoining owners. The Party Wall Awards expressly disclaimed design and construction responsibility. The claimant therefore had no real prospect of establishing liability against either surveyor. The awards provided for compensation, security and protective measures, and neither award had been challenged.
6. The claimant had already received a clear warning and an opportunity to replead. A further amendment would not cure the defects. Allowing the claim to continue would conflict with the overriding objective.