Particulars of claim must contain sufficient particulars of the facts on which the claim is based.
In Djurberg v Thames Properties (Hampton) Ltd and others [2023] EWHC 1444 (Ch); [2023] PLSCS 102, the defendant succeeded in a claim for reverse summary judgment because the claimant’s claim was fanciful.
The claimant was the registered proprietor of property in East Molesey, Surrey, and the neighbouring Hampton Riviera Boatyard both with river frontages and moorings.
The properties were repossessed by receivers appointed by the claimant’s mortgagees and sold to the first defendant, Thames. The claimant was subsequently bankrupted.
A settlement agreement between Thames, the claimant and his son in July 2022 provided that the claimant and his son would relinquish all rights over the properties in return for specified payments which were subsequently made.
The claimant was permitted to store personal effects and possessions at the property for a period of 4 weeks and to access the properties to retrieve them.
The claimant brought proceedings seeking the return of all goods stored at the properties. He claimed conversion and wrongful interference with goods by the defendants in relation to furniture, fixtures and fittings and working tools amounting to £750,000, breach of access rights and interference with the operation of the moorings.
The particulars of claim contained allegations of theft and damage to moorings by the defendants but no particulars were provided and no list of assets was attached to them.
In order to succeed in his claim, the claimant had to establish; i) that the assets were in the properties as the date of the settlement agreement; ii) that they were of substantial value; iii) that he owned them; iv) that they were not removed by him when he was permitted access and v) that he wished to remove them but was prevented from doing so and they had been damaged, destroyed or misappropriated by the defendants.
Regarding i) and ii) the claimant had not provided satisfactory evidence of the assets in the properties at the date of the settlement agreement, let alone their value and no good reason for not providing them.
There was no evidence to show that the assets were his and had not passed to his trustee in bankruptcy.
Claims under iv) and v) depended on his exclusion from the properties. A video showed his exclusion on one occasion only for a period of 24 hours. There was no other evidence of exclusion or complaints of exclusion.
The claimant’s claim was fanciful and the defendants were entitled to reverse summary judgment.
Louise Clark is a property law consultant and mediator
