Balaratnam v Santander UK Plc

Balaratnam v Santander UK Plc

The claimant's particulars of claim, both original and purportedly amended, failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action as the admissions and pleaded facts showed that conditions precedent for release of retention funds were not met, statutory and regulatory duties did not apply, and the appointment of receivers was contractually permitted. The master erred in refusing to strike out the claim or grant summary judgment, and in permitting amendments without proper scrutiny. There was no real prospect of success on any pleaded or proposed claim.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Mr Selvaratnam Balaratnam; Defendant/appellant: Santander UK PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Refusal to Strike Out or Grant Summary Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed; summary judgment entered for the bank
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Application, Duty of Care, Statutory Duty, Professional Negligence, Appointment of Receivers
Contract Law Banking Law Tort Law Breach of Contract Summary Judgment Strike Out Application Duty of Care Statutory Duty +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Selvaratnam Balaratnam

Claimant/respondent

Santander UK PLC

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Refusal to Strike Out or Grant Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's particulars of claim disclosed any reasonable cause of action against the bank
  2. 2 Whether the master erred in refusing to strike out or grant summary judgment on the claim
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was entitled to amend the particulars of claim to introduce new causes of action

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's particulars of claim, both original and purportedly amended, failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action as the admissions and pleaded facts showed that conditions precedent for release of retention funds were not met, statutory and regulatory duties did not apply, and the appointment of receivers was contractually permitted. The master erred in refusing to strike out the claim or grant summary judgment, and in permitting amendments without proper scrutiny. There was no real prospect of success on any pleaded or proposed claim.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; summary judgment entered for the bank

Orders

  • Master's order set aside
  • Claim struck out in its entirety