I had the pleasure of writing an article about the court’s approach under CPR 3.4 to striking out cases where there has been an abuse of process, no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending a claim, or a failure to comply with a practice direction or rule.
These rules are contained within the court’s general powers of case management enshrined in CPR 3. The purpose of CPR 3 has always been to ensure that the court could manage a case proportionately, efficiently and fairly, and in compliance with the overriding objective. Pre-1999 the court process, which was in essence governed by two sets of substantive rules, was deemed to be slow, expensive and overly technical. As time has progressed, it certainly seems that the rules have again become overly technical.
As such, and whilst the rule has always been present, courts are now adopting a new way of disposing of claims. Rather than reliance on the court’s case-management powers contained within CPR 3, the courts are preferring a summary judgement approach under CPR 24.
The process under CPR 24 allows a court to determine a claim without the need for trial when one party has no real prospect of success. To succeed in such applications, there must be proof that the claim is unlikely to succeed at trial and that there is no compelling reason for a trial to take place.
Both rules are powerful tools for disposing of a case. The evidential threshold for a strike-out is low. The applicant does not need to prove the facts of the claim but must only demonstrate that, even if the pleaded case is accepted, it cannot succeed. By contrast, summary-judgement applications are evidence-led: the court will assess witness statements, documents and the inherent strength of each party’s case.
The evidential burden is much higher than for a strike-out; the applicant must show positively that the opponent’s case has no real prospect of success, not merely that it is weak. From a purely practical standpoint, an N244 application with the statement completed on the back can feel like the quicker route, but any application for summary judgement should be supported by a full witness statement with evidence. The court’s job is to scrutinise those witness statements when considering a summary-judgement application.
So, what should the parties consider when choosing these approaches?
Under a strike-out the benefit is to narrow the issues early and remove speculative or irrelevant statements. Through summary judgement, strong documentary evidence—such as contracts, invoices and guarantees—can be showcased, allowing for an early judgement and the avoidance of trial costs.
Practical tips will always be to be precise about the CPR mechanism that applies and to anticipate whether the court may permit an amendment to a pleading.
Strike-out and summary judgement remain vital tools in managing a claim. Strike-out addresses defective pleadings and procedural abuse, as set out in CPR 3.4, whilst summary judgement addresses the substantive merits of a claim where no trial is necessary. Used effectively, each can save time and expense.
Impression works with businesses across the automotive aftermarket supply chain such as parts suppliers, warehouse distributors, motor factors and independent garages. Covering all aspects of automotive aftermarket marketing, including social media, event management, customer newsletters and PR, Impression is able to quickly establish itself within a client’s business and work towards their objectives.
If you are weighing up whether to seek a strike-out or summary judgement, why not call the legal team at Lawgistics? A quick conversation could help you choose the fastest, most cost-effective route.
