Summary Judgment vs Strike Out
Comparing CPR Part 24 summary judgment (no real prospect of success) with CPR r.3.4 strike out (no reasonable grounds, abuse of process, or rule breach) as tools to dispose of claims or defences without a full trial.
Overview
Two procedural mechanisms allow a civil claim or defence to be disposed of before trial without a full hearing on the merits: summary judgment under CPR Part 24, and strike out under CPR r.3.4. Although they are sometimes used together and the distinction can blur, they operate differently and the standard applied is not identical. Summary judgment asks whether the claim or defence has a 'real prospect of success' — a higher bar than a strike out, which can be granted where the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim, where the statement of case is an abuse of process, or where there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction, or court order. Courts are cautious about striking out where factual matters are in dispute, and may prefer summary judgment as the more appropriate mechanism.
Side-by-Side Comparison
Summary Judgment (CPR Part 24)
Pros
- Disposes of the case (or an issue) on the merits without a full trial — saves costs and time
- Available to both claimants and defendants against any part of a claim or defence
- The 'no real prospect of success' standard is well-established — Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91
- The court can give a conditional order (e.g. pay money into court) if the defence has a prospect of success but is improbable
Cons
- Not available until after the defendant has filed an acknowledgement of service or a defence (CPR r.24.4)
- The applicant must show there is no issue requiring a trial — courts are reluctant to decide complex factual or legal disputes summarily
- Requires a formal application with evidence — costs of the application are incurred even if not granted
Best For
Claims or defences that are clearly unarguable on the facts or law — particularly where the opponent's case depends on facts that cannot be established, or where a pure point of law is decisive.
Strike Out (CPR r.3.4)
Pros
- Can be applied at any stage — including before the opponent has filed a defence
- Ground (a) (no reasonable grounds) can be decided on the pleading alone without evidence
- Ground (c) (procedural breach) gives courts a tool to enforce compliance and manage litigation conduct
- Abuse of process ground covers a wide range including re-litigation, vexatious conduct, and misuse of proceedings
Cons
- Courts are reluctant to strike out where the claim or defence, however poorly pleaded, might succeed with proper particulars — often an order to amend is made instead
- Ground (a) requires the statement of case to be unarguable on its face — disputed facts will not usually justify strike out
- If struck out for procedural breach, reinstatement applications are possible under Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] — the matter may not be finally resolved
Best For
Hopeless or vexatious claims that are defective on the face of the pleading, cases of clear abuse of process (e.g. re-litigation of decided matters), and enforcement of procedural compliance.
Key Differences
Our Recommendation
Use summary judgment (CPR Part 24) where you can demonstrate with evidence that the opposing party's case has no real prospect of success — this produces a final merits-based decision. Use strike out (CPR r.3.4) where the statement of case is plainly bad on its face, abusive, or there has been a clear procedural breach. The two applications are often made together in the alternative. Courts will grant whichever is more appropriate, and a strike out application under ground (a) is often cheaper since it does not require written evidence.