Adam v Adam [2025] EWHC 1428 (Ch) (21 May 2025)

Adam v Adam [2025] EWHC 1428 (Ch) (21 May 2025)

The court found that the Claimant's pleadings, while not as detailed as the Defendant would like, were coherent and not so vague or inconsistent as to warrant strike out. The references to repudiatory breach did not misstate the law or render the claim unintelligible. The Further Information Application was refused as the information sought was either already provided, unnecessary for understanding the case, or could be resolved between the parties without a court order.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 1428 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Mohamedalmas Adam; Defendant/applicant: Safvan Ayub Adam
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Partnership Dispute / Interlocutory Applications (strike Out and Further Information)
Outcome
Defendant's Strike Out Application and Further Information Application both dismissed.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Particulars of Claim, Oral Agreements, Repudiatory Breach, Further Information Requests, Partnership Dissolution
Civil Procedure Partnership Law Strike Out Applications Particulars of Claim Oral Agreements Repudiatory Breach Further Information Requests Partnership Dissolution

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohamedalmas Adam

Claimant/respondent

Safvan Ayub Adam

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Partnership Dispute / Interlocutory Applications (strike Out and Further Information)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parts of the Particulars of Claim should be struck out for lack of particularity, inconsistency, or abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant should be ordered to provide further information in a CPR-compliant form

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Claimant's pleadings, while not as detailed as the Defendant would like, were coherent and not so vague or inconsistent as to warrant strike out. The references to repudiatory breach did not misstate the law or render the claim unintelligible. The Further Information Application was refused as the information sought was either already provided, unnecessary for understanding the case, or could be resolved between the parties without a court order.

Court Disposition

Defendant's Strike Out Application and Further Information Application both dismissed.

Orders

  • Strike Out Application dismissed in its entirety.
  • No order made on the Further Information Application.