David Alan Kyte v McLaren Automotive Limited & Anor [2026] EWHC 1126 (TCC)

The claimant owned a McLaren sports car bought in 2015, rebuilt by the first defendant after an accident and later serviced by the second defendant. The car caught fire in October 2017 and was a total loss. The claimant began proceedings in 2024, and the defendants applied to strike the claim out and for summary judgment on the basis that it was not adequately particularised.

Mr Justice Eyre examined the pleaded case and found it did not identify a properly particularised claim against either defendant: it failed to set out with the necessary clarity what each defendant had done wrong and how that caused the fire. The defects went to the root of the pleading rather than being matters of detail that could be cured, so the applications succeeded and the claim was struck out.

The case is a reminder that a claimant must plead a coherent and properly particularised case, identifying the breach alleged against each defendant and the causal link to the loss. A pleading that does not do so is vulnerable to being struck out however serious the underlying loss.

Mr Justice Eyre concluded at paragraph 106 that "the Defendants' applications succeed and the claim is to be struck out".