The Issue
Summary judgment requires no real prospect of success and no other compelling reason for trial. Where fraud is alleged, where the operative document has shifted across proceedings, where a forensic overlay analysis demonstrates identical signature pages, and where disclosure has been refused, there are manifestly compelling reasons for trial.
The Law: How It Should Operate
CPR 24.3; Takhar v Gracefield [2019] UKSC 13 — where fraud is alleged as the mechanism by which a prior determination was reached, the court has power to reopen it. Swain v Hillman [2001] — summary judgment should not be granted where factual issues require investigation. The test is real prospect of success, not certainty of failure.
How It Operated in Lawrence v HNW
Summary disposal was applied to issues that required disclosure, expert evidence and cross-examination: instrument authenticity, escrow release, ratification, delivery, receiver authority, beneficiary rights and eviction lawfulness. The compelling reasons for trial were identified by the Applicants and not engaged by the Court.
"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