Firdous v Ecclesall Design Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 90 (TCC) (22 January 2025)

Firdous v Ecclesall Design Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 90 (TCC) (22 January 2025)

The claims against the First, Fourth, and Fifth Defendants were struck out because the pleadings were vague, incoherent, and failed to set out a clear factual or legal basis. The proposed re-amendments did not cure these deficiencies. The Claimant failed to comply with pre-action protocols and did not provide evidence to support her claims. There was no realistic prospect of success, and it was not proportionate to allow further amendments. Summary judgment would have been granted in any event.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 90 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Nargis Firdous; First Defendant: Ecclesall Design Limited; Second Defendant: Susan Elizabeth Humphrey; Third Defendant: Dean Emmanuelle Miller; Fourth Defendant: Coverys Capital Limited (formerly DTW 1991 Underwriting Limited); Fifth Defendant: Monza Builders Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Technology and Construction Court / Application for Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment; Application for Permission to Re Amend Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Claim struck out against First, Fourth, and Fifth Defendants; summary judgment would have been granted in any event.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Pleading Requirements, Pre Action Protocols, Contractual Duties, Negligence, Insurance Liability
Civil Procedure Construction Law Insurance Law Strike Out Applications Summary Judgment Pleading Requirements Pre Action Protocols Contractual Duties +2 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 37 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nargis Firdous

Claimant

Ecclesall Design Limited

First Defendant

Susan Elizabeth Humphrey

Second Defendant

Dean Emmanuelle Miller

Third Defendant

Coverys Capital Limited (formerly DTW 1991 Underwriting Limited)

Fourth Defendant

Monza Builders Limited

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Technology and Construction Court / Application for Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment; Application for Permission to Re Amend Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Amended Particulars of Claim are so vague or incoherent as to warrant strike out or summary judgment
  2. 2 Whether proposed re-amendments cure pleading deficiencies
  3. 3 Whether permission to re-amend should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The claims against the First, Fourth, and Fifth Defendants were struck out because the pleadings were vague, incoherent, and failed to set out a clear factual or legal basis. The proposed re-amendments did not cure these deficiencies. The Claimant failed to comply with pre-action protocols and did not provide evidence to support her claims. There was no realistic prospect of success, and it was not proportionate to allow further amendments. Summary judgment would have been granted in any event.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out against First, Fourth, and Fifth Defendants; summary judgment would have been granted in any event.

Orders

  • Claim against First Defendant struck out
  • Claim against Fourth Defendant struck out