Halsion Limited v St Thomas Street Development Limited
Citation: [2023] EWHC 2045 (TCC)
The Judge allowed the defendant’s strike out application against the claimant’s Particulars of Claim. The claim was for recovery of an amount paid to the defendant pursuant to adjudication of a dispute arising from a trade contract. The defendant submitted that the Particulars of Claim (which were copied and pasted from a Response document in an adjudication) were incoherent, prolix, included submissions and irrelevant material and failed to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and the TCC Guide. Further the defendant applied to strike out and for “reverse” summary judgment on the following issues: (1) the claimant’s reliance on pre-contract negotiations in support of its construction of the contract on the basis that this was bad in law; (2) the declarations sought that the adjudication decision in the defendant’s favour was “of no effect” (the previous wording had been to “set aside” the decision and this was also objected to) and (3) the declarations sought as to the proper construction of the contract, both on the basis that the declarations sought were futile and unnecessary, and thus would never be grated. The Judge accepted all the defendant’s submissions; the Particulars of Claim were therefore struck out in their entirety pursuant to CPR 3.4(a), (b) and (c) and “reverse” summary judgment was granted. The claimant was given the opportunity to amend by way of a “wholesale redrafting” save for those aspects of the claim which had been held to have no prospects of success.
Lucy Garrett KC and Ben Sareen acted for the Claimant.
A copy of the judgment is available here.
