Nargis Firdous v Ecclesall Design Limited & Ors

Nargis Firdous v Ecclesall Design Limited & Ors

The claims against the First, Fourth, and Fifth Defendants were struck out and summary judgment granted because the pleadings were vague, incoherent, inadequately particularised, unsupported by evidence, and failed to comply with procedural rules and pre-action protocols. The proposed re-amendments did not cure these deficiencies, and there was no realistic prospect of an adequate pleading being produced. The overriding objective and efficient use of court resources justified refusing permission to re-amend and striking out the claims.

Parties
Claimant: Nargis Firdous; First Defendant: Ecclesall Design Limited; Second Defendant: Susan Elizabeth Humphrey; Third Defendant: Dean Emmanuelle Miller; Fourth Defendant: Coverys Capital Limited; Fifth Defendant: Monza Builders Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Technology and Construction / Ruling on Strike Out, Summary Judgment, and Permission to Amend
Outcome
Claim against First, Fourth, and Fifth Defendants struck out; summary judgment granted for those Defendants; permission to re-amend refused.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Pleading Requirements, Pre Action Protocols, Amendment of Pleadings, Negligence, Breach of Contract
Civil Procedure Construction Law Contract Law Tort Law Strike Out Applications Summary Judgment Pleading Requirements Pre Action Protocols +3 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 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

Fourth Defendant

Monza Builders Limited

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Technology and Construction / Ruling on Strike Out, Summary Judgment, and Permission to Amend

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 the 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 and summary judgment granted because the pleadings were vague, incoherent, inadequately particularised, unsupported by evidence, and failed to comply with procedural rules and pre-action protocols. The proposed re-amendments did not cure these deficiencies, and there was no realistic prospect of an adequate pleading being produced. The overriding objective and efficient use of court resources justified refusing permission to re-amend and striking out the claims.

Court Disposition

Claim against First, Fourth, and Fifth Defendants struck out; summary judgment granted for those Defendants; permission to re-amend refused.

Orders

  • Claim against Fifth Defendant struck out; summary judgment for Fifth Defendant
  • Claim against First Defendant struck out; summary judgment for First Defendant