CPR Summary Judgment
Share
Summary judgment is a legal mechanism that allows a court to resolve a claim without the need for a full trial. This process is governed by Part 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), and it serves as an efficient way to eliminate claims or defences that have no real prospect of success. The overarching objective of summary judgment is to save time, reduce costs, and prevent frivolous or vexatious claims from proceeding to trial.
Application for Summary Judgment
When served with a claim or defence, parties have various options for response. One such option is to apply for summary judgment. The benefits of seeking summary judgment are clear: it can lead to financial savings, an early resolution of the case, and a swift end to baseless claims or defences. By compelling the other party to present its case and evidence early on, it forces them to show their hand and demonstrates a commitment to vigorously pursuing or defending the claim. Even if the application for summary judgment is denied, it can still provide tactical advantages, such as clarifying the issues and potentially shortening the trial process. The case D G Finance Ltd v Scott and others [1995] established that multiple applications for summary judgment may be made during the course of a claim, provided there has been a significant change in circumstances since the previous application:
"A second application may be entertained where, since the previous unsuccessful application, there has been some change in the proceedings which has given rise to a new situation, not covered by the decision on the earlier application, sufficiently cogent to justify the further application."
Grounds for Summary Judgment
Under CPR 24.2, the court may grant summary judgment if it determines that the claimant or defendant has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim or defence, and there is no other compelling reason for the case to proceed to trial. This provision allows the court to dismiss claims or defences that are clearly unfounded, ensuring that only genuine disputes proceed to trial.
The concept of no real prospect means that the claim or defence must have more than just a fanciful or theoretical chance of success. The court must be convinced that there is a genuine likelihood of success, but it does not require proof to the standard necessary at trial. This distinction was emphasised in Royal Brompton Hospital NHS Trust v Hammond (No 5) [2001], where the court highlighted the need to consider available evidence without adhering strictly to the trial standard of proof.
Who Can Apply for Summary Judgment
Both claimants and defendants can apply for summary judgment. The application may relate to the entire claim or to a specific issue within the claim. For example, if a claimant brings a breach of contract claim alongside a tort claim, the court may grant summary judgment on the breach of contract claim if it finds that no valid contract exists, while allowing the tort claim to proceed to trial.
CPR 24.2(a)
To grant summary judgment, the court must be convinced that the claimant has no real prospect of success on the claim or that the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim. The burden of proof rests with the applicant, but it is not as stringent as the balance of probabilities standard used at trial. The court is not required to conduct a mini-trial but must be satisfied that the prospect of success is real and not merely speculative. In Swain v Hillman [2001], the court emphasised that the trial judge should focus on the specific facts of the case, rather than attempting to resolve the matter at the summary judgment stage. The court also clarified that a mini-trial is not required for a summary judgment application.
CPR 24.2(b)
In addition to determining that there is no real prospect of success, the court must also ensure that there is no other compelling reason why the case should go to trial. This provision has been subject to interpretation, particularly regarding what constitutes a compelling reason. Early versions of CPR 24.2(b) led to some confusion, but subsequent amendments clarified that only truly compelling reasons—such as the complexity of the case or the need for further evidence—justify a full trial. In Bouygues (UK) Ltd v Dahl-Jensen (UK) Ltd [2000], the court found that latent and cross-claims between the parties, as well as the liquidation of the claimant company, were compelling reasons to deny summary judgment.
Legal Issues Separate from Evidence
If a summary judgment application raises purely legal issues, and the judge has all the necessary facts, the matter can be decided at the application stage. However, if further evidence is required, the court may decide that a full trial is necessary. The court must consider the legal arguments independently of the evidence, as highlighted by Lord Hobhouse in Three Rivers DC v Bank of England (No. 3) [2001]:
"if the respondent’s case is bad in law, he will in truth have no real prospect of succeeding on his claim or successfully defending the claim against him, as the case may be. Similarly, if the applicant’s case is bad in law, the sooner that is determined, the better."
Orders the Court May Make
The court has several options when deciding a summary judgment application, as outlined in Practice Direction 24. These include granting judgment on the claim, striking out or dismissing the claim, dismissing the application, or issuing a conditional order. A conditional order is an order which requires a party to pay a sum of money into court, or to take a specified step in relation to his claim or defence, as the case may be, and provides that that party’s claim will be dismissed or his statement of case will be struck out if he does not comply.
Summary judgment is a valuable tool for resolving disputes without the need for a full trial. It helps to achieve justice efficiently and cost-effectively by allowing courts to eliminate claims or defences with no real prospect of success. It also serves as a means of upholding the court's overriding objective of ensuring that cases are dealt with justly, promptly, and proportionately. However, parties must exercise caution when applying for summary judgment, as unsuccessful applications can result in adverse costs orders.
Application for Summary Judgment
When served with a claim or defence, parties have various options for response. One such option is to apply for summary judgment. The benefits of seeking summary judgment are clear: it can lead to financial savings, an early resolution of the case, and a swift end to baseless claims or defences. By compelling the other party to present its case and evidence early on, it forces them to show their hand and demonstrates a commitment to vigorously pursuing or defending the claim. Even if the application for summary judgment is denied, it can still provide tactical advantages, such as clarifying the issues and potentially shortening the trial process. The case D G Finance Ltd v Scott and others [1995] established that multiple applications for summary judgment may be made during the course of a claim, provided there has been a significant change in circumstances since the previous application:
"A second application may be entertained where, since the previous unsuccessful application, there has been some change in the proceedings which has given rise to a new situation, not covered by the decision on the earlier application, sufficiently cogent to justify the further application."
Grounds for Summary Judgment
Under CPR 24.2, the court may grant summary judgment if it determines that the claimant or defendant has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim or defence, and there is no other compelling reason for the case to proceed to trial. This provision allows the court to dismiss claims or defences that are clearly unfounded, ensuring that only genuine disputes proceed to trial.
The concept of no real prospect means that the claim or defence must have more than just a fanciful or theoretical chance of success. The court must be convinced that there is a genuine likelihood of success, but it does not require proof to the standard necessary at trial. This distinction was emphasised in Royal Brompton Hospital NHS Trust v Hammond (No 5) [2001], where the court highlighted the need to consider available evidence without adhering strictly to the trial standard of proof.
Who Can Apply for Summary Judgment
Both claimants and defendants can apply for summary judgment. The application may relate to the entire claim or to a specific issue within the claim. For example, if a claimant brings a breach of contract claim alongside a tort claim, the court may grant summary judgment on the breach of contract claim if it finds that no valid contract exists, while allowing the tort claim to proceed to trial.
CPR 24.2(a)
To grant summary judgment, the court must be convinced that the claimant has no real prospect of success on the claim or that the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim. The burden of proof rests with the applicant, but it is not as stringent as the balance of probabilities standard used at trial. The court is not required to conduct a mini-trial but must be satisfied that the prospect of success is real and not merely speculative. In Swain v Hillman [2001], the court emphasised that the trial judge should focus on the specific facts of the case, rather than attempting to resolve the matter at the summary judgment stage. The court also clarified that a mini-trial is not required for a summary judgment application.
CPR 24.2(b)
In addition to determining that there is no real prospect of success, the court must also ensure that there is no other compelling reason why the case should go to trial. This provision has been subject to interpretation, particularly regarding what constitutes a compelling reason. Early versions of CPR 24.2(b) led to some confusion, but subsequent amendments clarified that only truly compelling reasons—such as the complexity of the case or the need for further evidence—justify a full trial. In Bouygues (UK) Ltd v Dahl-Jensen (UK) Ltd [2000], the court found that latent and cross-claims between the parties, as well as the liquidation of the claimant company, were compelling reasons to deny summary judgment.
Legal Issues Separate from Evidence
If a summary judgment application raises purely legal issues, and the judge has all the necessary facts, the matter can be decided at the application stage. However, if further evidence is required, the court may decide that a full trial is necessary. The court must consider the legal arguments independently of the evidence, as highlighted by Lord Hobhouse in Three Rivers DC v Bank of England (No. 3) [2001]:
"if the respondent’s case is bad in law, he will in truth have no real prospect of succeeding on his claim or successfully defending the claim against him, as the case may be. Similarly, if the applicant’s case is bad in law, the sooner that is determined, the better."
Orders the Court May Make
The court has several options when deciding a summary judgment application, as outlined in Practice Direction 24. These include granting judgment on the claim, striking out or dismissing the claim, dismissing the application, or issuing a conditional order. A conditional order is an order which requires a party to pay a sum of money into court, or to take a specified step in relation to his claim or defence, as the case may be, and provides that that party’s claim will be dismissed or his statement of case will be struck out if he does not comply.
Summary judgment is a valuable tool for resolving disputes without the need for a full trial. It helps to achieve justice efficiently and cost-effectively by allowing courts to eliminate claims or defences with no real prospect of success. It also serves as a means of upholding the court's overriding objective of ensuring that cases are dealt with justly, promptly, and proportionately. However, parties must exercise caution when applying for summary judgment, as unsuccessful applications can result in adverse costs orders.
