Article summary
Dispute Resolution analysis: This is a judgment on the defendant’s application under CPR 3.4(2)(a) to strike out the claim on the basis that the claimants’ particulars of claim discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, and/or for summary judgment pursuant to CPR 24.2 on the basis that the claimants have no real prospect of succeeding in their claim because they have not established that the Defendant owed them a duty of care. The court carefully considered the relevant facts, before concluding that the defendant owed no duty of care to any of the claimants. In doing so, the court applied Lord Bridge’s triple test in Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990] 1 All ER 568 and was guided by Customs & Excise Commissioners v Barclays Bank plc [2007] 1 AC 181 and John F Hunt Demolition Ltd v ASME Engineering Ltd [2007] EWHC 1507 (TCC), when considering the ‘spectrum’ of cases...
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial