Strike out for abuse of process (civil) (CPR 3.4(2)(b))

The following Dispute Resolution practice note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Strike out for abuse of process (civil) (CPR 3.4(2)(b))
  • Strike out for abuse of process—examples of abuse under CPR 3.4(2)(b)
  • Abuse of process—what can amount to abuse?
  • Abuse of process—second proceedings, collateral attack—Johnson v Gore Wood and beyond
  • Abuse of process—seeking constitutional relief where parallel legal remedy available
  • Abuse of process—delay in proceeding and ‘warehousing’ claims
  • Abuse of process—exaggerated claims
  • Abuse of process—deliberately undervaluing a claim
  • Abuse of process—absence of title to sue
  • Abuse of process—absence of authority
  • More...

Strike out for abuse of process (civil) (CPR 3.4(2)(b))

Coronavirus (COVID-19): The guidance detailing normal practice set out in this Practice Note may be affected by measures concerning process and procedure in the civil courts that have been introduced as a result of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. For guidance, see Practice Note: Coronavirus (COVID-19) implications for dispute resolution.

Under CPR 3.4(2)(b), the court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court that the statement of case is an abuse of the court's process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings.

It is evident from this that an application to strike out a statement of case on this ground may be brought by:

  1. a claimant in relation to a defence or a counterclaim

  2. a defendant in relation to a claim

  3. a third party defendant (Part 20 defendant) in relation to a claim against it

As seen in Practice Note: Strike out—court’s inherent jurisdiction and discretion, the court may also determine to strike out a statement of case of its own initiative.

For the full suite of guidance on strike out and summary judgment applications, see: Summary judgment and strike out—overview.

Note: there is a degree of overlap between strike out for abuse applications under CPR 3.4(2)(b) and the doctrine of res judicata and that of Henderson abuse, on which see Practice

Popular documents