Summary judgment and strike out—illustrative decisions

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

  • Summary judgment and strike out—illustrative decisions

Summary judgment and strike out—illustrative decisions

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.

The general principles applicable in applications for summary judgment or to strike out a claim/part of a claim are fairly well established, see eg, Practice Notes: Summary judgment—principles of approach and Strike out applications—what, who and when and related content in this subtopic.

Thus, many of the decisions in such applications are concerned more with the specific factual context of the dispute, rather than with generic principles.

However, it remains appropriate to note some of the more illustrative decisions. These are listed below with full links to the judgment (and, where available, our News Analysis of the judgment). The decisions listed below are those dating from 1 November 2017 onwards (earlier key decisions are included elsewhere within the guidance in this subtopic). We do not include every decision but only those from which interesting points of application arise.

Case details and analysisNature of disputeKey issues consideredThe result
Surkis v Poroshenko

Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court)

Surkis v Poroshenko [2021] EWHC 2512 (Comm)
Claim for unlawful means conspiracy,

Popular documents