Kausar Raja v Terry Godrick McMillan

Kausar Raja v Terry Godrick McMillan

The court refused the defendant's application for further information under CPR Part 18 on the basis that the particulars of claim were already found sufficient for trial by both the High Court and Court of Appeal, the information sought was not reasonably necessary or proportionate for the defendant to prepare his case or understand the case he has to meet, and the requests largely concerned matters that would be addressed through disclosure. The court also found that the defendant's conduct contributed to delay and increased costs, and that further orders would not be in accordance with good case management or the overriding objective.

Parties
Claimant: Kausar Raja; Defendant: Terry Godrick McMillan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil (chancery Division, Business List) / Interlocutory Application for Further Information Under CPR Part 18 and for Strike Out Unless Compliance
Outcome
Defendant's application for further information and strike out refused.
Legal Topics
CPR Part 18 Requests, Pleading Fraud, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Case Management, Disclosure, Strike Out Applications
Civil Procedure Fraud Property Law CPR Part 18 Requests Pleading Fraud Unlawful Means Conspiracy Case Management Disclosure +1 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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kausar Raja

Claimant

Terry Godrick McMillan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (chancery Division, Business List) / Interlocutory Application for Further Information Under CPR Part 18 and for Strike Out Unless Compliance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant should be compelled to provide further information under CPR Part 18 regarding the conspiracy and fraudulent misrepresentation claims
  2. 2 Whether the particulars of claim are sufficiently pleaded for the purposes of trial
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is entitled to further particulars to prepare his case or understand the case he has to meet

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused the defendant's application for further information under CPR Part 18 on the basis that the particulars of claim were already found sufficient for trial by both the High Court and Court of Appeal, the information sought was not reasonably necessary or proportionate for the defendant to prepare his case or understand the case he has to meet, and the requests largely concerned matters that would be addressed through disclosure. The court also found that the defendant's conduct contributed to delay and increased costs, and that further orders would not be in accordance with good case management or the overriding objective.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application for further information and strike out refused.

Orders

  • No order compelling the claimant to provide further information under CPR Part 18.
  • No order striking out the particulars of claim.