S – Summary judgment
28/11/24
BANGS v FM CONWAY LTD [2024] EWCA Civ 1461
The merits of the underlying claim are irrelevant when the court has to make a case management decision such as whether to grant relief from sanction. There is an exception if a party wishes to contend that its case is so strong that it would be able to obtain summary judgment. Even then, the merits should only be taken into account when this can be readily demonstrated, without detailed investigation. A party who wishes to contend that the merits of its case satisfy the summary judgment test must give clear notice of that contention sufficiently in advance of the hearing to enable the other party to decide what evidence it wishes to deploy. The other party will not be expected to deploy evidence to the extent that it would at trial. All the other party has to do is to show that there are sufficient matters in dispute that summary judgment is likely to be inappropriate.
11/11/24
YEUNG v JECKZ INVESTMENT LTD [2024] EWCA Civ 1413
Summarises general principles for the grant of summary judgment [14]. On the facts, there was and would be no material or plausible evidence to support a realistically arguable defence of undue influence and the judge below had therefore been right to grant summary judgment on the defendant’s personal guarantees.
17/4/24
NIPROSE INVESTMENTS LTD v VINCENTS SOLICITORS LTD [2024] EWHC 801 (Ch)
On a summary judgment application seeking to dismiss claims made by a number of claimants against a firm of solicitors for professional negligence, the court held that the claims were not adequately pleaded but the court should not enter summary judgment without giving the party concerned an opportunity of curing the defects or omissions and adjourn the application to be re-considered in the light of the proposed amendments.
10/4/24
HEYES v HOLT [2024] EWHC 779 (Ch)
Contains a useful summary of principles to be applied on summary judgment applications. The claim, which was to establish an interest in property on the basis of proprietary estoppel, was weak but not so weak as to have no real prospect of success. Considers principles to be applied in making a conditional order for payment of money into court or provision of security
10/6/20
DVB BANK SE v VEGA MARINE LTD [2020] EWHC 1494 (Comm)
Considers when documents other than a claim form may be served by an alternative method or at an alternative place [46] - [55] and the grant of permission to make a summary judgment application against a defendant who has not filed an acknowledgment of service [56] - [63].
27/5/20
BOYSE (INTERNATIONAL) LTD v NATWEST MARKETS PLC [2020] EWHC 1264 (Ch)
Considers the law relating to pleading deceit and fraud in a claim relating to LIBOR manipulation [35] and when the claimant could with reasonable diligence have discovered the fraud for the purpose of s 32(1) Limitation Act 1980 [38]. For that purpose there must have been something to put the claimant on notice [47]. Considers whether proceedings can be struck out where this is in issue, or whether summary judgment is appropriate [48]. It will normally be appropriate for summary judgment to be pursued on a limitation point and preferably after the claimant has had an opportunity to plead its case [53]. On the facts the claim was time barred and an application for permission to amend was dismissed.
19/3/20
LOMBARD NORTH CENTRAL PLC v EUROPEAN SKYJETS LTD [2020] EWHC 679 (QB)
When the claimant demanded repayment of a loan it had wrongly believed there were arrears of $300k when the arrears were only $179.99. The court allowed an appeal against a refusal to set aside a default judgment. It was arguable with a real prospect of success that the arrears had been de minimis [45], that the claimant had a duty to state the debt with reasonable accuracy [47], or that there was an estoppel preventing the claimant relying on the lower sum as a default [48]. Discusses arguments that the contract contained penalties or that the defendant could seek relief from forfeiture [50] [57]. The fact that the arrears were so small also meant there was “some other” reason to set aside the judgment. Considers the impact of delay in applying to set aside the judgment [106] and considerations common to set aside and summary judgment applications [120].
13/3/20
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK (INTERNATIONAL) LTD v TECHTREK INDIA LTD [2020] EWHC 539 (Ch)
Where the maker of a statement is relying on evidence provided by a witness who is an officer of, or employed by, an incorporated body, the requirements of paragraph 18 of Practice Direction 32 to provide the source of evidence is not complied with merely by saying that the source is the entity or officers of the entity. If the source of evidence is a person, as opposed the source being documents, the person or persons must be identified and named. A failure to identify the source in a manner that complies with paragraph 18.2 will mean the court has to consider whether to place any weight on the evidence, especially where it touches on a central issue [20]. On the facts, evidence that the third defendant had signed a guarantee and that the form of the guarantee had been agreed by the principal debtor was inadequate and the bank’s application for summary judgement was refused.
16/12/19
INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA LTD v AMBANI [2019] EWHC 3436 (Comm)
Where a defence just about stood a real prospect of success but the defendant’s evidence was incomplete and implausible, it was appropriate to make a conditional order requiring the defendant to pay money into court.
12/11/15
SHARP v BLANK [2015] EWHC 3219 (Ch)
The defendant applied for summary judgment to dismiss a claim by shareholders for breach of fiduciary and tortious duties by directors of Lloyds Bank in the acquisition of HBOS by failing to disclose that HBOS had been manipulating LIBOR submissions. As disclosure had not yet taken place, the court could not say with confidence that the claimant's case was without substance.
17/7/14
BANK LEUMI (UK) PLC v AKRILL [2014] EWCA Civ 907
The judge below had been wrong to give summary judgment to a bank on a claim on a guarantee. The guarantor had a defence with a real prospect of success that representations had been made to him that the bank would only seek to enforce the guarantee in the event of a shortfall after realising security on a property. But as it was improbable that the defence would succeed, the defendant would be given conditional leave to defend and the case would be remitted to the High Court to decide what conditions to impose.
6/11/13
GULATI v MGN LTD [2013] EWHC 3392 (Ch)
MGN was refused summary judgment dismissing phone hacking claims. Considers the extent to which it is relevant on to take into account the fact that the claimant was reliant on the defendant’s disclosure to make out its case in full especially where the defendant’s alleged activities had been covert.
2/10/13
CREDIT SUISSE AG v ARABIAN AIRCRAFT & EQUIPMENT LEASING CO EC [2013] EWCA Civ 1169 Where an aircraft leasing agreement provided alternative and inconsistent bases for the calculation of damages for breach, the claimant could not obtain summary judgment on the basis of a calculation on which it had not pleaded reliance. Particulars of claim should identify with care and precision the case the claimant is putting forward [17].
7/6/13
CIMC RAFFLES OFFSHORE (SINGAPORE) LTD v SCHAHIN HOLDING SA [2013] EWCA Civ 644
Although normally a court may be able to deal summarily with the question of law whether a variation to a principal contract fell within the purview of a guarantee, on the facts the court needed to have regard to the factual matrix. Summary judgment was not therefore appropriate.
15/3/13
BUTTERFIELD BANK (UK) LTD v PHILIP, QBD (Merc)
An allegation by a guarantor that a bank had sold property at an undervalue was not supported by the evidence. The guarantee prevented set-off of cross-claims. Errors in the calculation of the debt and an issue as to the correct default rate were not material because the errors had been corrected and the default rate was not relied on. The defence had no prospect of success and the bank was granted summary judgment.
14/12/12
ERSTE GROUP BANK AG v JSC (VMZ RED OCTOBER) QBD (Comm)
A creditor was entitled to summary judgment against a guarantor despite the fact that a Russian court had set aside the guarantee. The guarantee was governed by English law and the decision of the Russian court had no effect.
© Copyright 2014 Neil Levy All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer