Employment analysis: It had been open to an employment tribunal to hold that a fair trial of a remedy claim was no longer possible and that it was both proportionate and appropriate for the remedy claim to be struck out in order to deal with the case justly, in circumstances where the claimant was found to have destroyed relevant or potentially relevant evidence, or to have lied about whether that evidence remained available, and these actions were designed to frustrate justice being done by preventing further inquiry, according to the EAT.

This Practice Note has been written by Anne Redston, Barrister. It is her personal view; she is not authorised to speak for the Tribunals Service or the judiciary. This Practice Note discusses the draconian nature of strike outs, and the reasons why an appeal at the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) can be struck out under rule 8 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-Tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules, SI 2009/273 (FTT Rules). It also considers barring orders which can be issued to HMRC; the consequences of a party withdrawing its case under rule 17 and when it can be reinstated under that rule. This Practice Note, and the other Practice Notes on appealing to the FTT, are only a summary; they do not cover all situations. You may need to take further advice in relation to your client’s appeal position. In particular, none of these Practice Notes deals with appeals or reviews relating to decisions made by Revenue Scotland in relation to any of the Scottish devolved taxes in respect

IP analysis: This judgment relates to an application made by Edozo to strike out parts of the defence and counterclaim of Valos which alleged indirect infringement of the literary copyright in the Original Valos Computer Program, the Subsequent Valos Computer Programs and the Valos Coded Prompts. The source code of all the software was claimed by Valos to consist of original literary works in which copyright subsisted. The court held that these elements of the defence and counterclaim should be struck out. The creation of the Edozo Steps, alleged to copy the Valos Steps (part of the functionality of the Valos Computer Programs), was not deemed to be an act capable in law of being an act of infringement of the copyright in the Valos source code. The decision provides an instructive analysis of precedent relating to copyright infringement in the context of computer programmes and software, as well as the boundaries of the wider idea/expression of ideas distinction in copyright law. Written by Hallam Whitehead, solicitor at Knights.

Dispute resolution analysis: A claim for damages for negligence and breach of contract against former solicitors formulated on the basis that, had they performed the contract or acted without negligence, the claimant would either not have been convicted or the penalty imposed by the court would have been less severe, was a collateral attack on a final decision of a court of competent jurisdiction and should be struck out. Where, however, a head of claim did not include, as an essential element, an allegation that the outcome of the criminal proceedings would have been different, then that claim was not an abuse of process and should be allowed to proceed. This decision of the Court of Appeal provides further guidance in this difficult area of law. Written by David Fisher, barrister, at New Square Chambers.

What happens after a strike out order has been made? CPR PD 3A, para 1.6 provides that where a rule, practice direction or order states ‘shall be struck out or dismissed’ or ‘will be struck out or dismissed’ this means that the striking out or dismissal will be automatic and that no further order of the court is required. When the court makes a strike out order, it can make any consequential order it considers appropriate (CPR 3.4(3)). See also CPR PD 3A, para 4.2, which provides that where a judge strikes out all or part of a party’s statement of case, they may ‘enter such judgment for the other party as that party appears entitled to’. As well as entering judgment for the other party, consequential orders could include that the party whose case was struck out pay the other party's costs. In Clutterbuck v Cleghorn for example, the Court of Appeal upheld the strike out of two of three of the claimants' claims and ordered the claimants to serve

The extent of the different provisions, which effectively empower the court to exercise its discretion to strike out a claim or issue in furtherance of the overriding objective, highlight the continuing drive for the courts to manage cases to ensure the effective use of their resources. CPR 3.4(2) sets out three specific grounds on which strike out may be ordered, see Practice Notes: • Strike out—no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim (CPR 3.4(2)(a)) • Strike out for abuse of process (civil) (CPR 3.4(2)(b)) • Strike out for failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or order (CPR 3.4(2)(c)) However, these provisions specifically do ‘not limit any other power of the court to strike out a statement of case’ (CPR 3.4(5)). This is often referred to as being the court’s inherent jurisdiction to strike out a statement of case. In addition to its inherent jurisdiction under CPR 3.4(5), the authorities have also seen use of CPR 3.1 and CPR 3.3 as means by which the court can exercise its discretion

A strike out order can be made either following an application by the parties or on the court's own initiative. This Practice Note deals with the scenario of the order being made following a party's application. Making an application to strike out a statement of case A strike out application is an application for a court order—the basic procedure is therefore set out in CPR 23 and CPR PD 23A. Guidance on making a CPR-compliant application can be found in Practice Note: How to make an application for a court order (CPR 23). You should familiarise yourself with this guidance before making any application to the court—it provides the starting point for all applications governed by CPR 23 and CPR PD 23A. The following sections highlight particular aspects of the applications procedure which are specific to an application for strike out. What follows should be read as a supplement to, rather than a substitute for, the general guidance referred to above. Depending on the court in which your matter is

Under CPR 3.4(2)(a), the court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court ‘that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim’. 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 under CPR 3.4(5). For guidance on the other grounds on which the court may strike out a claim, see Practice Notes: • Strike out for abuse of process (civil) (CPR 3.4(2)(b)) • Strike out for failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or order (CPR 3.4(2)(c)) • Strike out—strategic litigation against

This Practice Note explains the circumstances in which a statement of case may be struck out where the claim constitutes strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPP) and how to apply for such a strike out. For general guidance on striking out a statement of case, see: • Summary judgment and strike out—overview • Practice Note: Strike out applications—what, who and when What is strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPP)? The measures concerning SLAPP were enacted to address concerns about the improper use of the legal system to harass or intimidate opponents. For the background and history, see Practice Note: Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs)—key definitions and procedures—SLAPPs statutory definition and procedure. Note that SLAPP is also sometimes referred to as strategic ‘lawsuits’ against public participation (SLAPPS). Strategic litigation against public participation is defined in section 195 of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA 2023). For further details, see Practice Note: Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs)—key definitions and procedures—SLAPPs statutory definition and procedure. SLAPP strike out

Family analysis: The husband had sought to vary the payment date in respect of a secured lump sum order of £1.1m. The original consent order (December 2018) provided for payment of that sum to the wife by June 2023. The wife successfully cross-applied to strike out the husband’s variation application and a costs order was made in her favour. Finding the Family Court lacked jurisdiction to vary a lump sum order’s payment date by two years, Simon Colton KC (sitting as a deputy High Court judge) exercised the court’s strike-out powers and considered in detail the applicability of the solicitors’ guideline hourly rates to family proceedings. The costs order was summarily assessed on the standard basis. Crucially, though the judge found himself not to be bound by the guideline hourly rates, he did endorse them as being a ‘good indicator of what costs were proportionate’ for the wife to recover ‘in the absence of some clear or compelling justification why they should be exceeded’. David Wilkinson, solicitor at Slater Heelis, considers the issues.

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) struck out claims against three defendants in a defects claim. The court found that the claimant’s particulars of claim were inadequately particularised—and, moreover, had no realistic prospect of being properly plead. This judgment underscores the importance of well-formulated proceedings in professional negligence disputes, and demonstrates the court’s readiness to dismiss claims lacking a clear legal and factual basis, even if striking out is considered a last resort. The case also emphasises the significance of adhering to pre-action protocols and civil procedure rules, which may be relevant to the court’s decision on whether to strike a case out.

Law360, Expert analysis: The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)’s call for input on the long-term impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on retail financial services closed on 24 February 2026. According to the analysis, with contributions from Emma Readmore, Legal Director (Practice Development Lawyer) and Laura Wiles, Solicitor, both at Solicitor at Womble Bond Dickinson UK regulators are trying to maintain a pro‑innovation yet risk‑aware approach to AI in financial services, but growing pressure argues that this stance may underestimate significant consumer and market risks, prompting calls for clearer rules, accountability and AI‑specific oversight.