Jermaine Jennings v Adlin Pierre (CL 21 of 2022) [2022] TCASC 25 (23 August 2022)

Flynote

Civil Procedure

Case summary

The Defendant’s summons to strike out was dismissed. The Plaintiff was granted summary judgment on liability, with damages to be assessed. Striking out ruling: The Defendant contended firstly, that the statement of claim was defective as contrary to Order 18 rule 7, it did not contain the material facts as regards breach of contract and negligence on which the Plaintiff relies. The Court found the breach of contract and negligence claim were sufficiently clear and the statement of claim contained sufficient material facts, considering that Order 18 rule 7 (1) calls for brevity in pleading [8]. The statement of claim was not signed by the Plaintiff’s attorney, but the Court refused to strike it out on this ground. The Defendant had acknowledged the claim, indicated that he intended to defend it and had not shown how he was in any way prejudiced by the Plaintiff’s failure to sign the writ and statement of claim [10]. As regards Order 18 rule 19, the Court considered firstly whether the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action. To succeed on an application to strike out an action on this ground, the Defendant must satisfy the Court that even if the Plaintiff proves all the pleaded allegations, the action would still fail. Royal Bank of Scotland International Ltd v JP SPC 4 [2022] UKPC 18 considered [12].  The Defendant had not shown that the Plaintiff’s pleadings did not disclose a reasonable cause of action against him, and the summons to strike out the action on that ground failed. The Court did not find the Plaintiff’s claim to be scandalous, frivolous or vexatious [14]. Finally, there was no evidence that the Plaintiff had abused the process of the Court [15]. Summary Judgment ruling: On a summary judgment application, the parties and the court are not restricted to a consideration of the pleadings. The court may (and indeed, should) consider all the evidence before it. A plaintiff’s application must be supported by an affidavit, and the defendant may file an affidavit detailing the nature of its defence [18]. The Plaintiff had to satisfy the Court that the Defendant had no defence to either the breach of contract, or negligence claim, which had a realistic prospect of success. The Plaintiff filed an affidavit. Exhibited to the Plaintiff’s Affidavit was an estimate bearing the Defendant’s business name, address and phone number dated 7 May 2021. The estimate detailed the cost for labour and materials to be charged to the Plaintiff. Also exhibited to the Plaintiff’s Affidavit were copies of text messages purportedly exchanged between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, where they discuss the repairs and servicing of the vehicle. The Defendant filed an Affidavit, but that affidavit did not specify the nature of the intended defence. The Defendant did not file any further affidavit to answer the allegations in either the Plaintiff’s Affidavit or the statement of claim, despite having been served with an answer to his request for further and better particulars.  In all the circumstances, the Defendant had not responded to the allegations in the Plaintiff’s Affidavit that there was a contract (as evidenced by the estimate), or that he was in possession of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and on at least 3 occasions had failed to return it to him despite agreeing to do so, (as evidenced by the purported text messages). The court must decide a summary judgment application on the basis of the evidence before the court when it hears the application [25]. In this case the Defendant had not filed any evidence that disclosed a good or even an arguable defence. In the circumstances there was no basis for the court to exercise its power under Order 14 rule 4 to give the Defendant leave to file a defence.

---