Gunaratnam Kirupakaran v Mahomed Tehseen Ibrahim & Ors

Summary

A property owner sued his neighbour's directors and an employee, together with the contractor and the professionals engaged on a large redevelopment next door, for damage he said the works had caused to his building. The defendants applied to strike out the claim or for summary judgment, saying the pleaded case disclosed no proper cause of action against any of them.

The claimant had been warned at an earlier hearing that his pleaded case was inadequate, but the amended particulars of claim did not cure the defects.

Mrs Justice O'Farrell struck out the claim against all of the defendants. The amended particulars did not disclose any reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, and the claimant was ordered to pay the defendants' costs.

Background and facts

The claimant owned a terraced property at 166 Croydon Road, with a retail unit and flats. The adjoining property at 164 Croydon Road, a public house with flats above, was owned by a company that was carrying out a substantial redevelopment, adding storeys and a rear extension and doing party wall works.

The claimant sued a number of parties: the directors and an employee of the neighbouring owner, the main contractor, and the professionals engaged on the works, alleging that the works had damaged his property. The company's directors and the employee were resident abroad but had defended and did not challenge jurisdiction.

The defendants applied to strike out the claim form and the amended particulars of claim, and in the alternative for summary judgment, on the ground that the pleaded case disclosed no reasonable grounds and had no real prospect of success. The claimant had already been warned at an earlier hearing that his pleaded case was deficient.

The issue

The court had to decide whether the amended particulars of claim disclosed a proper cause of action against each of the defendants, or whether the claim should be struck out or dismissed as having no real prospect of success.

The decision

Mrs Justice O'Farrell struck out the claim against every defendant. Each defendant had explained, in its defence and evidence, the defects in the case pleaded against it, and those inadequacies had not been addressed in the amended particulars of claim despite the earlier warning.

"the Amended Particulars of Claim do not disclose any reasonable grounds for bringing the claim against any of the defendants."Mrs Justice O'Farrell, paragraph 71

The court granted the applications and made the claimant pay the costs:

"the applications to strike out the claim and/or for summary judgment against the claimant are granted; (ii) the claimant shall pay the defendants' costs of the claim."Mrs Justice O'Farrell

Practical implications

A claim must plead a proper case against each defendant, not a broad blame of everyone involved. Where damage is caused by works next door, the various parties, the neighbour, its directors and staff, the contractor and the professionals, have different roles and different bases of potential liability. A claimant must identify what each one is said to have done wrong and why it is liable, rather than name them all and leave the detail to be worked out later.

Suing directors and employees personally needs a pleaded basis. A director or employee is not liable simply because the company carried out the works. To fix a director or employee with personal liability, a claimant must plead the facts that establish it, such as a personal assumption of responsibility or personal procurement of a wrong. A pleading that names individuals without that basis is vulnerable to strike out.

Take a warning about your pleading seriously. The claimant had been told at an earlier hearing that his case was inadequate, and the failure to cure the defects in the amended particulars weighed heavily. A claimant given the chance to put its pleading in order should use it fully, because a court that has already flagged the problem will not give endless opportunities.

A defective pleading against professionals invites early challenge. A contractor, architect or engineer that receives a claim which does not spell out the duty, the breach and the causal link can apply to strike it out or for summary judgment, and will recover its costs if it succeeds. Both sides should treat the particulars of claim as the document that decides whether the case survives.

Gunaratnam Kirupakaran v Mahomed Tehseen Ibrahim and others [2026] EWHC 1429 (TCC), Technology and Construction Court, Mrs Justice O'Farrell DBE. Judgment handed down 11 June 2026.