Stor RB One Limited v Sripiragash Kanthasamy

Fraud must be pleaded clearly, identifying the alleged fraudster, the deception and how the court was misled. A defective but curable pleading should ordinarily be amended rather than struck out. On summary judgment, the question is whether the claim has a realistic prospect of success, not whether it has already been proved; the court should not conduct a mini-trial where forgery allegations raise real factual issues. A live legal question about setting aside a fraud-tainted judgment may be adjourned where an imminent appellate ruling bears directly on it. The court left unresolved whether fraud by a co-defendant who does not rely on the judgment can engage that jurisdiction.

Mr Kanthasamy issued a claim to set aside a 2023 summary judgment and order obtained by Stor RB One Limited on a personal guarantee. He alleged that the guarantee and related independent-legal-advice documents were forged, and that a co-defendant had misled the court through the defence. Stor applied for strike out under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and reverse summary judgment under CPR 24.3. The court considered the adequacy of the fraud pleading, the prospects of proving forgery, and whether a judgment could be set aside where the alleged fraud was not committed by the judgment creditor. The latter issue was affected by the pending appeal in Lindsay’s Estate v Outlook Finance Ltd [2025] EWHC 3100 (KB).

1. Disposition. The application for reverse summary judgment on the factual issue was dismissed. The applications for strike out and summary judgment on the legal issue were adjourned pending the Court of Appeal’s decision in Lindsay’s Estate v Outlook Finance Ltd [2025] EWHC 3100 (KB). The claimant was required to amend the claim and pay the costs of and occasioned by the amendment; costs of the application were reserved.
2. Pleading fraud. The Particulars of Claim were defective because they did not clearly identify who committed the fraud, how the court was misled, or how the requirements of the fraud-based set-aside jurisdiction were met. The court referred to Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd [2019] UKSC 13. The defect was potentially curable, so amendment was preferable to strike out.
3. Legal issue. The court assumed for present purposes that the alleged conduct amounted to deceit of the court and could be attributed to the co-defendant’s company. It distinguished the factual setting described in Lindsay’s Estate v Outlook Finance Ltd, where the fraudster was a judgment creditor and the further issue concerned an innocent co-creditor. Whether that distinction affected the jurisdiction remained unresolved. The pending appeal addressed the point directly, making an adjournment procedurally quicker and cheaper.
4. Summary judgment. Applying the approach in Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom Ltd [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch), the court considered whether the forgery claim had a realistic prospect of success without conducting a mini-trial. Differences in signatures, evidence concerning the allegedly forged legal-advice certificate, the age of documents, a WhatsApp transcription, the timing of the allegation and the parties’ relationship created factual issues requiring trial. Hardship caused by the underlying order was not, by itself, a reason to refuse summary judgment.