Arbitration analysis: This case concerned an application by the respondent, OWH, for the summary dismissal of a section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) challenge brought by the claimants, RTI and Rusal. RTI and Rusal alleged that the relevant award was affected by serious irregularities under AA 1996, s 68(2)(a), (c), (d) and/or (g), and sought an extension of time to bring their challenge outside the 28-day limit prescribed by AA 1996, s 70(3). OWH argued that the application was improper, hopeless, and should be summarily dismissed, and that, being out of time, no extension should be granted. The court agreed, refusing the late AA 1996, s 68 challenge. The judgment reinforces the strict approach to statutory time limits and the high evidential threshold for serious irregularity claims, underlining the principle of finality in arbitration. Written by Oliver Browne, partner at Paul Hastings (Europe) LLP.

Criminal analysis: What is now banned from UK porn? Gary Pons, a barrister at 5 St Andrew’s Hill, examines the changes and restrictions brought into effect by the Audiovisual Media Services Regulations 2014.

The excision of written material from the record by the court, such that it may no longer be relied on.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. An 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 such applications. Amendments to CPR Part 24 and CPR PD 24—1 October 2023 Practitioners should note that the CPR provisions relevant to summary judgment were amended with effect from 1 October 2023. CPR Part 24 was substituted and CPR PD 24 was revoked. The changes were intended to simplify the rules, and do not materially alter the substantive law or practice. The numbering and location of some provisions is changed. Accordingly, authorities which pre-date the 1 October 2023 amendments may include reference to the previous provisions and numbering. References in this Practice Note are to the wording of CPR Part 24 in force from 1 October 2023. For tables showing the destination of the old provisions and the

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) struck out a property damage claim arising from adjoining building works and granted summary judgment for all defendants after finding that the claimant’s amended particulars of claim failed to disclose any reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and did not comply with an earlier unless order requiring a properly pleaded case. The court emphasised that CPR 16.4 requires a claimant to identify the duties relied on, the alleged breaches, causation and loss against each defendant. The judgment also contains important observations on the limited quasi-judicial role of party wall surveyors under the Party Wall etc Act 1996 and confirms that litigants in person remain subject to the same pleading requirements as represented parties.

Dispute Resolution analysis: On an application for strike out and summary judgment of parts of a defence to a section 994 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) unfair prejudice petition, the court considered the extent to which historic misconduct might justify the removal and exclusion of a director. The Insolvency and Companies Court took a dim view of purported justifications dating back many years, even if serious at the time, and even if supported by more recent (but more modest) alleged wrongdoing. The petitioner's application was granted with orders for strike out and summary judgment. Written by Christopher Burt, legal director at Wedlake Bell LLP.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. Successful applications to strike out or obtain summary judgment of a claim, defence or a specific issue both essentially have at their heart the bringing to an end of that piece of, or particular issue, in the litigation. An application for summary judgment is often brought in addition to an application to strike out. It is useful, therefore, to consider some of the overlapping aspects and differences between these two forms of application. In addition, there are other ways in which parties may be prevented from continuing with a claim or specific issue in it and, again, it is useful to consider the interaction between summary judgment and strike out applications with these other forms of process. For guidance generally on strike out applications, see Practice Note: Strike out applications—what, who and when and related content. For guidance generally on summary judgment applications, see Practice Note: Summary judgment applications—what, who and when and related content. Amendments to CPR Part

Dispute Resolution analysis: The claimant’s personal injury claim against the second defendant was initially struck out as disclosing no reasonable grounds for bringing the proceedings. The consequence was that the claimant lost the protection of qualified one-way costs shifting and was liable to pay the second defendant’s costs. On appeal it was found that the judge at first instance wrongly applied an approach appropriate for a summary judgment application to an application to strike out. This was a case where the statement of case disclosed all the necessary elements of a cause of action under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 and in negligence. Being unable to make good a pleaded case on the evidence did not detract from that and, therefore, the judge was wrong to strike out the claim against the second defendant. Written by Nicholas Lee, managing director and costs lawyer at Paragon Costs Solutions.

This Practice Note considers who may bring an application to strike out a statement of case (or part of a statement of case), identifies the three grounds on which such application may be brought and timing issues as to when such an order may be made. What is strike out under the CPR? The court has the power to strike out a statement of case, in whole or in part, under CPR 3.4. Under CPR 2.3(1), 'statement of case' means a claim form, particulars of claim, defence, counterclaim or other additional claim, reply to defence and any further information given under CPR 18.1. Note: the court may strike out the particulars of claim but consider there is no good reason to strike out the claim form. In such circumstances it would be open to the claimant to apply to serve amended particulars of claim, although the court may set a deadline within which any application to amend must be made. See for example the decisions in Johnson v McArdle and Broomhead v National

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Orjis were tenants of a property owned by the Nagras. The Orjis commenced proceedings for trespass against the Nagras following certain incidents. Later by amendment they sought to add a claim for malicious prosecution, although that was subsequently withdrawn. Later still they sought to make a separate claim for malicious prosecution. The deputy District Judge and, on appeal, the Circuit Judge, struck out the new claim for malicious prosecution as an abuse of process relying on the rule in Henderson v Henderson. On a further appeal the Court of Appeal held that the rule in Henderson v Henderson did not apply because there had been no prior determination of the issues and so overturned the decisions below. Written by Charles Joseph, barrister, at Tanfield Chambers.

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 • otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings This Practice Note discusses what may amount to an abuse of process or conduct that is likely to obstruct the just disposal of proceedings, as well as the general approach that the court takes where it finds that there has been an abuse. For discussion of the other grounds upon which the court may strike out a statement of case, see Practice Note: Strike out applications—what, who and when. What is an abuse of the court’s process? Abuse of process—purpose of the doctrine The purpose of the abuse of process doctrine has been authoritatively considered by the House of Lords and the Supreme Court. In Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands, Lord Diplock referred to the: ‘…inherent power which any court of justice must possess to prevent

This Practice Note considers when the court may strike out a statement of case under CPR 3.4(2)(c) for failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or order and what amounts to a ‘failure to comply’ in this respect. Under CPR 3.4(2)(c), the court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court that there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order. It is evident from this that an application to strike out a statement of case on this ground may be brought by: • a claimant in relation to a defence or a counterclaim • a defendant in relation to a claim • 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. What amounts to a failure to comply for