The Issue
Strike-out under CPR 3.4 is available only where a statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds, is abusive, or fails to comply with rules. It is not a substitute for trial on complex fraud allegations. Where forgery, escrow, receiver authority and occupation rights are in dispute, those issues require disclosure, cross-examination and trial — not paper disposal.
The Law: How It Should Operate
CPR 3.4; ED&F Man v Patel [2003] — courts must be 'very slow indeed' to grant summary disposal on fraud allegations. Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom — where the factual basis is genuinely contested, summary disposal is unsafe. Strike-out is for truly hopeless claims — not for difficult claims that require trial.
How It Operated in Lawrence v HNW
The Defence and Counterclaim — including fraud, forgery, unlawful eviction, receiver conflict and beneficiary rights — was struck out before disclosure, expert evidence or cross-examination. The court concluded there was no sustainable basis for fraud while the provenance of the operative instrument remained wholly unexplained.
"The question is not whether one court reached one adverse result. It is that the same failure of protection recurred across courts, tribunals, administration, policing and oversight, making the pattern visible only because the case passed through so many forums."
— Open Letter to the Lord Chancellor, May 2026