Key Facts
- •Doha Bank (Third Defendant) appeals an order granting Claimants (Syrian citizens) permission to amend their Particulars of Claim and dismissing the Bank's strike-out application.
- •Claimants allege the Al Khayyat brothers (Defendants 1 & 2) and Doha Bank facilitated funding for the al-Nusra Front, a terrorist group.
- •Claimants initially sought to amend their claim to include a 'State Conspiracy case' implicating the Qatari State, but later withdrew this amendment.
- •The Bank argued the court lacked jurisdiction due to state immunity based on the Claimants' evidence suggesting Qatari State involvement.
- •Claimants then presented a 'Misappropriation case', alleging funds from the Qatari State were misappropriated and used to fund terrorism.
- •The Bank applied to strike out the claim for disclosing no reasonable grounds and being an abuse of process.
- •Swift J permitted the amended Particulars of Claim, finding no inconsistency with the evidence.
- •The Court of Appeal considered whether the amended claim was a tactical manoeuvre to avoid state immunity and whether it was coherent and supported by evidence.
Legal Principles
A statement of case must be concise and plead only material facts necessary for formulating a cause of action or defence.
Tchenguiz v Grant Thornton LLP [2015] EWHC 405 (Comm)
Permission to amend a pleading requires a merits test; the amended pleading must have a real prospect of success and be supported by evidence.
Wittgenstein-Sayn v His Majesty Juan Carlos [2022] EWCA Civ 1595
A claimant is not obliged to plead their case at its highest, and may advance alternative cases, provided they are clearly identified as alternatives and meet the merits test.
None explicitly cited, but discussed in judgment
Irrelevant or embarrassing matters in a pleading may be struck out.
Davy v Garrett (1878) LR 7 Ch D 473
Requests for further information should be concise and proportionate.
CPR 18 PD 1.2, Raiffeisen Bank International AG v Asia Coal Energy Ventures Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 11
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.
The amended Particulars of Claim contained irrelevant and embarrassing matters, and the 'Misappropriation case' lacked evidentiary support and was a potential tactical manoeuvre to avoid state immunity.
Paragraph 9 of the Amended Particulars of Claim and the Response to the Request for Further Information were struck out.
These sections were irrelevant, incoherent, and failed the merits test.
Certain phrases were struck out or amended in the Amended Particulars of Claim.
These phrases were irrelevant to the cause of action or created inconsistencies.
The remaining Amended Particulars of Claim was allowed to proceed.
The Claimants' claim could stand without the struck-out portions, and the source of the funds was immaterial to their cause of action.