Blaine v Touchstone Corporate Ltd [2025] EWHC 982 (Ch) (02 May 2025)

Blaine v Touchstone Corporate Ltd [2025] EWHC 982 (Ch) (02 May 2025)

The claimant's pleadings on causation and loss were inadequate and failed to set out a coherent counterfactual scenario. Allegations based on FCA Handbook section headings, not rules, were unsustainable. New allegations of breach must be in the Particulars of Claim, not the Reply. The claimant was permitted to amend...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 982 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Susan Blaine; Defendant: Touchstone Corporate Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil (professional Negligence, Financial Advice) / Interlocutory Application (strike Out and Permission to Amend Pleadings)
Outcome
Application granted in part; certain amendments permitted, others refused; specified paragraphs struck out.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Amendment of Pleadings, Breach of Statutory Duty, Misrepresentation, Causation and Loss, FCA Handbook, Consumer Rights Act 2015
Professional Negligence Financial Services Civil Procedure Strike Out Applications Amendment of Pleadings Breach of Statutory Duty Misrepresentation Causation and Loss +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Susan Blaine

Claimant

Touchstone Corporate Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (professional Negligence, Financial Advice) / Interlocutory Application (strike Out and Permission to Amend Pleadings)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parts of the claimant's pleadings should be struck out for disclosing no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim or for procedural impropriety
  2. 2 Whether the claimant should be granted permission to amend her pleadings to include new claims and increase the quantum of loss
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's case on causation and loss is adequately pleaded

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's pleadings on causation and loss were inadequate and failed to set out a coherent counterfactual scenario. Allegations based on FCA Handbook section headings, not rules, were unsustainable. New allegations of breach must be in the Particulars of Claim, not the Reply. The claimant was permitted to amend to plead a higher property value, but not to rely on expert evidence at this stage. Certain paragraphs of the pleadings were struck out for non-compliance and lack of particularisation.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; certain amendments permitted, others refused; specified paragraphs struck out.

Orders

  • Claimant permitted to amend pleadings as specified (final sentence of paragraph 4, subparagraph 6.1, paragraphs 33-34, and to plead market value at £1.7m)
  • Paragraphs 4 (re section 39 FSMA), 14c and 14d of APOC struck out