Kasongo v CRBE Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 1464 (KB) (28 March 2023)

Kasongo v CRBE Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 1464 (KB) (28 March 2023)

The Judge erred in law by striking out the claim under CPR 3.4(2)(a) based on an evaluation of evidence (CCTV and factual findings) rather than confining the analysis to the statement of case. The particulars of claim disclosed reasonable grounds for bringing the claim; any assessment of evidential merit should have been addressed under summary judgment (CPR 24), not strike out. The costs order under CPR 44.15 was therefore not justified.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 1464 (KB)
Parties
Appellant / Claimant: Andrew Kasongo; Respondent / Defendant: CRBE Limited; Respondent / Defendant: Transport for London
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From Strike Out Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Qualified One Way Costs Shifting (qocs), Occupiers' Liability, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Strike Out Applications Summary Judgment Qualified One Way Costs Shifting (qocs) Occupiers' Liability Costs Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Kasongo

Appellant / Claimant

CRBE Limited

Respondent / Defendant

Transport for London

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From Strike Out Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Judge erred in striking out the claim under CPR 3.4(2)(a) on the basis that the statement of case disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim
  2. 2 Whether the Judge wrongly applied the test for summary judgment to a strike out application
  3. 3 Whether the claim against TfL was properly struck out with costs enforceable under CPR 44.15

Ratio Decidendi

The Judge erred in law by striking out the claim under CPR 3.4(2)(a) based on an evaluation of evidence (CCTV and factual findings) rather than confining the analysis to the statement of case. The particulars of claim disclosed reasonable grounds for bringing the claim; any assessment of evidential merit should have been addressed under summary judgment (CPR 24), not strike out. The costs order under CPR 44.15 was therefore not justified.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Strike out order against the claimant set aside
  • Costs order against the claimant set aside