Susan Blaine v Touchstone Corporate Limited

Susan Blaine v Touchstone Corporate Limited

The court held that the claimant's pleadings on causation and loss were inadequate and failed to set out a complete counterfactual scenario. Allegations of breach based on FCA Handbook section headings, and new allegations advanced in the Reply, were impermissible and fell to be struck out. Permission to amend was granted only for certain claims, including a revised market value case, but not for inadequately particularised or duplicative claims. Permission to rely on expert evidence was deferred to the case management conference.

Parties
Claimant: Susan Blaine; Defendant: Touchstone Corporate Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil (professional Negligence, Breach of Statutory Duty, Misrepresentation, Deceit) / Interlocutory Application for Strike Out and Permission to Amend Pleadings
Outcome
Application granted in part and refused in part.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Amendment of Pleadings, Causation and Loss, FCA Handbook Breaches, Section 138 D FSMA, Section 49 Consumer Rights Act 2015, Expert Evidence, Market Value of Property
Professional Negligence Financial Services Regulation Contract Law Consumer Protection Strike Out Applications Amendment of Pleadings Causation and Loss FCA Handbook Breaches +4 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 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, Breach of Statutory Duty, Misrepresentation, Deceit) / Interlocutory Application for 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 particulars, including increased loss and reliance on expert evidence
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's case on causation and loss is adequately pleaded

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the claimant's pleadings on causation and loss were inadequate and failed to set out a complete counterfactual scenario. Allegations of breach based on FCA Handbook section headings, and new allegations advanced in the Reply, were impermissible and fell to be struck out. Permission to amend was granted only for certain claims, including a revised market value case, but not for inadequately particularised or duplicative claims. Permission to rely on expert evidence was deferred to the case management conference.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part and refused in part.

Orders

  • Claimant permitted to amend pleadings to include: (a) final sentence of paragraph 4 of draft RAPOC; (b) subparagraph 6.1 of draft RAPOC (correcting statutory reference); (c) paragraphs 33 to 34 of draft RAPOC; (d) a case that the market value of the property at sale was £1.7m.
  • Paragraph 4 of APOC (section 39 FSMA) and paragraphs 14c and 14d of APOC struck out.