Notes from BPC hearing: Strike‑Out Application in a Partnership Dispute, summary judgment, costs- DJ Obodai/ 29.01.26

A recent trust and probate hearing before a Business and Property Court provided an insight at how the courts evaluate applications to strike out legally unrecognisable claims, procedural deficiencies and award of costs on IB. The matter arose from a dispute over a property partnership and involved multiple defendants, several legal representatives, and complex allegations.

Background to the Case

The claim stemmed from a property partnership that had purchased property at auction. The claimant alleged:

• Mismanagement of the partnership

• Financial misconduct

• Falsification of partnership records

• Fraud

• Emotional distress and harm

• Attempts to sell partnership assets improperly

• The need for an injunction to prevent dissipation of assets

Four defendants were involved, along with additional parties named across various allegations.

The claimant sought dissolution of the partnership and compensation but had not issued a money claim nor filed a formal statement of case, relying instead on broad particulars of claim.

Defendants’ Applications

The defendants collectively sought:

• Strike out of the claim

• Alternatively, summary judgment

• Costs

Their core submissions included:

1. No Proper Cause of Action

Counsel argued that:

• The particulars of claim did not identify a legally recognisable claim.

• No duty of care was pleaded.

• No breach, causation, or loss was set out.

• The claimant’s grievances were not framed in law.

One defendant emphasised that he had no involvement in the alleged misconduct and should not have been named.

2. Professional Duties Misunderstood

It was submitted that:

• Any duty of care owed by accountants was owed to the partnership as a whole, not personally to the claimant.

• Bringing in several defendants simply because they were “relevant to the factual matrix” was improper.

3. Procedural Deficiencies

The defendants highlighted:

• Lack of compliance with pre‑action protocol

• Poor bundle preparation

• No meaningful evidence provided

• Failure to respond to defendants’ written questions

4. No Realistic Prospect of Success

Under the test for summary judgment, defendants argued that:

• The claim was “so obviously wrong” that it could not succeed.

• Allowing it to continue would waste court resources.

Claimant’s Position

The claimant, appearing in person, maintained that:

• They only sought dissolution of the partnership.

• The dispute had been ongoing for several years.

• They had not been part of decisions regarding legal funding for the firm.

• They believed misconduct had occurred but did not expand beyond the contents of their particulars.

When asked directly by the judge whether any case existed against certain defendants, the claimant could not provide further explanation.

Judge’s Findings

The judge delivered a detailed judgment addressing procedural and substantive issues.

1. No Legal Basis for Claims Against Certain Defendants

The judge held that:

• The claim form and particulars did not set out any legal cause of action against several defendants.

• Naming them because of involvement in the “factual matrix” was insufficient.

• The claimant had not identified duty, breach, or loss.

2. Misconceived Claims Against Professionals

The court found:

• Professionals named in the claim owed duties to the partnership, not the individual claimant.

• Therefore, the claimant had no personal claim against them.

3. Strike Out and Summary Judgment Granted

The court applied CPR 3.4 and 24:

• The claim disclosed no reasonable grounds.

• There was no real prospect of success.

• It would be inappropriate and disproportionate for the claim to continue.

4. Factual Allegations Insufficient

While the claimant had alleged fraud, financial misconduct, and falsification of documents, these were unsupported by any pleaded legal framework or evidence.

5. Costs

The defendants succeeded in their applications and were awarded costs on the standard basis.
The judge declined to award indemnity costs because the defendants had not shown that the claimant’s conduct was sufficiently unreasonable or out of the norm.

Conclusion

This hearing showed the importance of:

• Clearly identifying a cause of action

• Demonstrating duty, breach, and loss

• Following procedural requirements

• Understanding when professional duties are owed to a partnership rather than individuals

When litigants fail to meet these thresholds, the court will not hesitate to strike out a claim to prevent wasted time and resources.