Toner v Telford Homes Ltd & Ors [2021] EWHC 516 (QB) (05 March 2021)

Toner v Telford Homes Ltd & Ors [2021] EWHC 516 (QB) (05 March 2021)

The court held that the claims as pleaded by Mr Toner were deficient in various respects, including lack of particularity as to fraud and misrepresentation, duplication between claims, and failure to set out concise statements of fact as required by the Civil Procedure Rules. The court found that many of the claims had no real prospect of success or were bound to fail in law, and that the pleadings did not comply with the requirements of CPR 16.4 and PD16. The court therefore struck out or summarily dismissed the claims against the applying Defendants, subject to the possibility of amendment in limited respects.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 516
Parties
Claimant: Paul John Toner; First Defendant (high Court Claim): Telford Homes Limited; Second Defendant (high Court Claim): Bishopsgate Apartments LLP; Third Defendant (high Court Claim): Avantgarde – BGR Management Limited; Fourth Defendant (high Court Claim); Second Defendant (county Court Claim): Rendall and Rittner Limited; Fifth Defendant (high Court Claim): Estates and Management Limited; Sixth Defendant (high Court Claim): Brigante Properties Limited; First Defendant (county Court Claim): Kyriacos Prodromou
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil (high Court and County Court) / Application to Strike Out And/or for Summary Judgment
Outcome
Claims struck out and/or summary judgment granted in favour of the applying Defendants, with leave to apply for amendment in limited respects.
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Breach of Contract, Negligence, Harassment, Defamation, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications, Limitation of Actions, Service Charges, Leasehold Property
Contract Law Tort Law Property Law Civil Procedure Misrepresentation Breach of Contract Negligence Harassment +6 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul John Toner

Claimant

Telford Homes Limited

First Defendant (high Court Claim)

Bishopsgate Apartments LLP

Second Defendant (high Court Claim)

Avantgarde – BGR Management Limited

Third Defendant (high Court Claim)

Rendall and Rittner Limited

Fourth Defendant (high Court Claim); Second Defendant (county Court Claim)

Estates and Management Limited

Fifth Defendant (high Court Claim)

Brigante Properties Limited

Sixth Defendant (high Court Claim)

Kyriacos Prodromou

First Defendant (county Court Claim)

Procedural Posture

Civil (high Court and County Court) / Application to Strike Out And/or for Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claims as pleaded disclose reasonable grounds for bringing the claim under CPR 3.4(2)(a)
  2. 2 Whether the claims are an abuse of process under CPR 3.4(2)(b)
  3. 3 Whether the pleadings comply with CPR 16.4 and PD16, especially regarding fraud and misrepresentation

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the claims as pleaded by Mr Toner were deficient in various respects, including lack of particularity as to fraud and misrepresentation, duplication between claims, and failure to set out concise statements of fact as required by the Civil Procedure Rules. The court found that many of the claims had no real prospect of success or were bound to fail in law, and that the pleadings did not comply with the requirements of CPR 16.4 and PD16. The court therefore struck out or summarily dismissed the claims against the applying Defendants, subject to the possibility of amendment in limited respects.

Court Disposition

Claims struck out and/or summary judgment granted in favour of the applying Defendants, with leave to apply for amendment in limited respects.

Orders

  • The claims against the applying Defendants are struck out or dismissed by summary judgment.
  • The Claimant may apply to amend his pleadings, subject to the court's discretion.