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 must determine whether the claims as pleaded disclose reasonable grounds, are not abusive, and have a real prospect of success, applying the relevant CPR rules and authorities. Particulars of Claim must set out the material facts with sufficient particularity, especially for fraud and misrepresentation. If the pleadings are defective but potentially curable, the court may allow amendment rather than strike out. Summary judgment is appropriate only if the claims are bound to fail.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 516 (QB)
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) / Strike Out and Summary Judgment Applications
Outcome
Applications to strike out and for summary judgment considered; judgment reserved on specific claims and issues; directions for possible amendment of pleadings post-judgment.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Misrepresentation, Breach of Contract, Harassment, Defamation, Service Charges, Limitation, Pleading Requirements
Civil Procedure Property Law Contract Law Tort Law Strike Out Applications Summary Judgment Misrepresentation Breach of Contract +5 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 6 Authorities cited 42 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) / Strike Out and Summary Judgment Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claims as pleaded disclose reasonable grounds for bringing the claims 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 as to fraud and misrepresentation

Ratio Decidendi

The court must determine whether the claims as pleaded disclose reasonable grounds, are not abusive, and have a real prospect of success, applying the relevant CPR rules and authorities. Particulars of Claim must set out the material facts with sufficient particularity, especially for fraud and misrepresentation. If the pleadings are defective but potentially curable, the court may allow amendment rather than strike out. Summary judgment is appropriate only if the claims are bound to fail.

Court Disposition

Applications to strike out and for summary judgment considered; judgment reserved on specific claims and issues; directions for possible amendment of pleadings post-judgment.