What is going on? Last month saw several cases reported where pleadings, as I fondly still call them, were not up to scratch. Given that the substantive requirements have been with us for decades and more, this is puzzling.
Mr Justice Rajah in Illiquidx Ltd v Altana Wealth Ltd and others [2025] EWHC 1566 (Ch) considered there to be a basic injustice on account of the claimant failing to identify its case and plead it with particularity and precision: ‘Pleadings are there to mark the parameters of the case and inform the other side of the case they have to meet. Vague and expansive pleadings do not do that….’. The expensive sanction was to deny the claimant 50% of its substantial costs.
The Court of Appeal moved with astonishing alacrity when it heard an appeal against an order made by Mrs Justice Joanna Smith
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b21f1aaf_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=754d0e82_1)
