Home / Dispute Resolution / Applications—specific / Summary judgment and strike out

Legal News

Shelving claims—when ‘warehousing’ is an abuse of process (Asturion Fondation v Alibrahim)

Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis

Published on: 22 February 2019

Published by a LexisNexis Dispute Resolution expert

Table of contents

What are the practical implications of this case?
What was the background?
What did the court decide?
Case details

Article summary

Dispute Resolution analysis: This judgment explores the meaning of the term ‘warehousing claims’ and deals with if and when it will amount to an abuse of process. Warehousing is a term which has come to be used to describe some circumstances that have been found to be abusive. The case looks at the main authorities dealing with the warehousing of claims and when it has previously been found to be an abuse of process, including Grovitt v Doctor [1996] 1 WLR 640 and Société Générale v Goldas Kuyumculuk Sanayi Ithalat Ihracat A.S. [2017] EWHC 667(Comm). Written by Nicole Bollard, barrister at 3PB Barristers.

Popular documents

Summary judgment—the hearing, orders and costs

Summary judgment—the hearing, orders and costsThis Practice Note considers what may happen at a summary judgment application under CPR 24, including case management issues, what orders the court can make (including conditional orders), costs of the application and practical considerations when

Strike out and summary judgment applications—how to respond

Strike out and summary judgment applications—how to respondAn application for summary judgment or to strike out all or part of a claim are often made in addition or in the alternative to one another. This Practice Note considers the action that should be considered when faced with either or both

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

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

Setting aside default judgment—discretionary grounds (CPR 13.3)

Setting aside default judgment—discretionary grounds (CPR 13.3)Where a claimant has obtained judgment against a defendant who failed to file an acknowledgment of service or a defence (known as a default judgment or judgment in default), the defendant can ask the court to exercise its discretion to