No Cause of Action, no claim: Defendant secures dismissal and costs

On Friday 12 December at Central London County Court, Clyde & Co’s specialist cross-border team secured another successful outcome on the recurring - and often decisive - issue of defective pleadings.

The point, previously explored by the cross-border team in this insight article, continues to generate litigation risk for claimants who fail to engage with it properly. The Defendant, represented by Harry Peto of 2TG, successfully defended a claim which was ultimately dismissed in its entirety. The Court also ordered the Claimant to pay the Defendant’s costs, summarily assessed at £540.

Background

The Claimant company alleged that one of its vehicles was involved in a collision with the Defendant’s insured vehicle on 1 July 2019 on the M25 in England. It pursued a claim for £3,156.29 in repair costs, plus VAT and statutory interest at 8%.

The Defendant denied involvement in the alleged collision, citing evidential deficiencies, and further challenged the claim on the basis of defective pleadings. With no resolution between the parties, the matter proceeded to trial.

Key issues considered

Statement of Truth Compliance

The Defendant submitted that the Statement of Truth attached to the pleadings failed to comply with the CPR. It stated only that the Claimant’s solicitor believed the facts to be true, rather than confirming the Claimant’s own belief. As a result, there was nothing before the Court evidencing that the Claimant itself stood behind the factual assertions in the claim.

This issue had been clearly raised in the Defence months earlier. Despite this, the Claimant neither remedied the defect nor attended the hearing to address it. The Claimant argued that the Claim Form contained the correct (auto-generated) wording and that striking out would be a disproportionate response.

While the Judge declined to strike out the claim - relying on the wording of the Claim Form and the solicitor’s authority - this was a discretionary and fact-sensitive outcome. It is by no means guaranteed that other courts would take the same approach.

Cause of Action: No way around it

Having survived the first challenge, the Claimant sought to rely on the European Communities (Rights against Insurers) Regulations 2002 (“the Regulations”) to pursue a claim in England against the Defendant, a Romanian insurer.

The Defendant submitted that Regulation 2 requires the vehicle concerned to be “normally based” in the UK. On the facts, it was not. As a result, Regulation 3 did not apply and no direct right of action arose under the Regulations.

The Claimant advanced no substantive response to this point. The Judge accepted the Defendant’s submissions and dismissed the claim outright. There was no alternative route available to the Claimant: the absence of a valid statutory cause of action was fatal.

Costs

The Defendant sought recovery of its brief fee, arguing that it was unreasonable to pursue a claim which disclosed no reasonable grounds. The Judge agreed, noting in particular the Claimant’s failure to engage with or respond to the legal issue squarely raised in the Defence. Costs were awarded in the sum of £540.

Key Takeaways

Our specialist cross-border team encounters defective pleadings on a daily basis. This decision reinforces several critical points for practitioners:

• Statements of Truth matter: A Statement of Truth must confirm the party’s own belief in the truth of the pleadings, not merely that of a solicitor or agent. Defects may prove fatal.
• Engage with Defence points: Ignoring serious legal challenges raised in a Defence - particularly those which go to jurisdiction or cause of action - can lead to dismissal and adverse costs findings.
• Know the statutory framework: Claims based on statutory rights must plead and satisfy the correct legal tests. Failure to do so is often irrecoverable.
• Costs risks are real: Even relatively low-value claims can attract costs orders where they are pursued without merit or proper legal foundation.

This outcome underscores the value of early, specialist input. The result was achieved through a clearly defined strategy, informed by deep familiarity with cross-border claims and the procedural pitfalls that frequently arise in them.

Clyde & Co are specialists in handling cross-border and international claims, and we continually monitor developments in this area. For more on this subject, you can read all of our previous articles here,. If you have any questions, please contact the author of this article, Nicky Clench, or any member of our Cross-Border team.