[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Parker v Snyder & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 1320 (17 September 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1320.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 1320

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM MANCHESTER COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Howarth)

		The Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Tuesday, 17 September 2002

Tuesday 17 September 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE CARNWATH: This is a claim against former business colleagues. The pleading alleges that in effect they were plotting together to run down the business which they were about to buy from the claimant. I do not need to go into the details. The judge struck the claim out on the basis that the pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action.
2. It is fair to say that the original pleading was defective, in the sense that it did not provide any particularity of the matters that were required to be pleaded, particularly bearing in mind that they included claims of conspiracy and fraud. However, by the time the matter came before the judge there was an amended pleading which, although perhaps not a model of clarity, did bring into play the contents of a statement by a Mr Pearson, who was a former operations manager. Again I do not need to go into any detail, but Mr Pearson gives evidence to show (if his evidence is upheld at trial) that there were certainly dealings between at least two of the defendants which were designed to run down the business, although the particular ideas which he was aware of were not in fact pursued in that form.
3. The judge, as I read his judgment, took the view that that evidence would be wholly inadmissible at trial because it related to a scheme which was not in fact pursued; and once one had got rid of that material, then clearly the pleadings based on it had no substance and the rest of the claim had no substance either. However, it seems to me that it was reasonably arguable that Mr Pearson's evidence and the matters which were pleaded on the basis of his evidence were admissible, since they were largely related to the substance of the case; or at least that it was not an issue which should have been disposed of at the strike-out stage. I bear in mind that the effect of the judge's decision is not simply to get rid of the pleading on the basis that it should be pleaded with more particularity, but that the whole claim goes.
4. For those reasons, it seems to me that we should give permission so that this appeal, which is against the judge's order striking out the whole claim, can be pursued. For that reason I would allow this application.
5. In view of that decision, the second part of the claim, which relates to the costs, does not need to be dealt with separately but will be included in the appeal.
6. LORD JUSTICE WALLER: I agree.
ORDER: Application allowed. Appeal to be heard by two Lords Justices with a time estimate of half a day excluding judgment. Costs reserved to the Court of Appeal. (Order not part of approved judgment)