Isle of Man: The Tests For Summary Judgment And Strike Out – A Timely Reminder From The Courts That This Is A High Bar To Meet

Last Updated: 1 October 2019
Article by Emily Johnson

Whilst the law surrounding summary judgment and strike out is well trodden and extensively documented, two recent cases involving the Simcocks Dispute Resolution team have served as a timely reminder from the Manx courts that summary judgment and strike out will not be a usual remedy and should be reserved for those cases which are effectively unarguable.

In particular, the court has been quick to criticize those applications it considered tactical or taken on purely technical terms.

Magee and Co Limited v Sartfell Education and Tourism Limited and Dr Peter Lillywhite

This case, from late 2018, involved allegedly negligent quantity surveying services provided by the Claimant. The Defendants had refused to pay for the quantity surveyor's fees, resulting in the Claimant issuing proceedings in the Small Claims Procedure. This claim was defended and a counter claim issued for an alleged failure to properly quantify several materials required for the project.

The Claimant filed an application to strike out the counterclaim on the basis that:

  1. The Claimant did not have access to the structural engineer's drawings at the point of preparation of the bill of quantities;
  2. Whilst the Claimant accepted he had omitted a costing for the Ancon channels and ties, these would be compensated for by a contingency sum in the bill of quantities, designed to cover such eventualities;
  3. The Claimant notified the Defendants that the sums for structural steelwork in particular would need to be checked upon receipt of updated structural drawings;
  4. The claim would fail on causation in any event because the original contract, for which the bill of quantities was prepared, was separated into multiple smaller contracts and the bill of quantities was therefore not reliable against the change in specification; and
  5. The claim would fail on causation in any event because a further quantity surveyor prepared an updated bill of quantities and therefore the responsibility for the figures contained therein would transfer to the newly instructed surveyor rather than the Claimant.

At an early stage in this application, the court was quick to reiterate that a mini trial is not desirable in these types of claim (paragraph 5), even in circumstances where it is necessary to conduct some level of enquiry into the facts to reach a decision. The court in this case permitted both parties the opportunity to submit a degree of additional documentary evidence, but remained of the view that such evidence fell short of the clear and unequivocal indication the court would need to find in favour of strike out or summary judgment. Such comments as the following made it clear to the parties that the court takes the view summary judgment or strike out is a high threshold to surmount which should generally be reserved for fairly straightforward and uncomplicated fact patterns:

"Mr Magee's evidence was that the drawings and specifications changed a number of times. I interpose to suggest that such would be a matter of evidence after full disclosure" (paragraph 19)

" Of course, the documentation is not so clear and self-contained such that at this stage one can say with certainty that information was properly communicated to the Defendants or other persons in the design team. Such would be a matter for evidence at trial following full disclosure" (paragraph 20)

Ultimately, the court decided that nothing in the evidence before them was so unequivocal that it would justify striking out the claim or granting summary judgment as the issues were so complex that they needed to be tested at trial and that the court needed the benefit of expert assistance to determine them.

Whilst this is no change to the substantive law, it serves to highlight the court's robust approach to this type of application and the high bar that an applicant must surmount for summary judgment and/or a strike out application to be successful.

Jacqueline Karen Fergusson v Marks and Spencer PLC

In this very recent case, Simcocks found themselves defending two tactical applications made by the Defendant, who attempted to strike out and/or seek summary judgment against the Claimant's claim for personal injury arising out of a slipping incident in their store. The claim had initially been pleaded in negligence and/or breach of statutory duty with reliance upon the evidential maxim of res ipsa locquitor, on the basis that the Claimant had not seen whether her fall was caused by water, a spillage in the store or a latent defect in the store's floor surface.

The Defendant took issue with the pleading, as it argued that res ipsa loquitor did not apply and the facts pleaded were insufficient to found either a claim in negligence or a claim for breach of duty. Pre action requests had been made of the Defendant to try and establish the root cause of the accident, but the Defendant had failed to retain a copy of the RIDDOR report they had submitted to the relevant authority and were unable to furnish the Claimant with the CCTV covering the pertinent area of the store.

After the close of pleadings, the Claimant was able to trace the RIDDOR report with Health and Safety Department of DEFA and obtained a copy, which showed that the Defendant's employee reported water on the floor in the vicinity of the accident as being the root cause. Following skeleton arguments, the Defendant filed a further application seeking an alternative remedy in case of the strike out application failing, which was for an unless order to compel the Claimant to amend the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant contested this application on the basis that she was unable to plead a fact outside of her knowledge and the contents of the RIDDOR report had not been prepared in her presence or with her knowledge.

After hearing argument, the court delivered a short ex tempore judgment which has subsequently been reported. This judgment serves to emphasise the key points the court will consider in these types of application: –

  1. Is the claim unarguable? – "I have noted the Defendant's concern at the Claimant's quoted apparent inability to say exactly what caused her foot to slip but I do not believe, in light of what is known of the circumstances of the case so far, that the difficulty of the Claimant to be precise makes her claim unarguable or having a poor chance of success. The Claimant does not know the cause of the slip but has firmly pleaded in respect of the alternate reasons set out in paragraph 3 of the particulars of claim." (paragraph 15)
  2. Should the issues be determined at trial? – "The principles of res ipsa locquitor relate to the evidential burden in the precise circumstances of the facts of a particular case. It will no doubt be a matter of further discussion and argument if this case proceeds to trial when the court can reach findings of fact and from those findings consider the case specific circumstances which party needs to prove what. As I say, in my view, res ipsa locquitor is something that should be properly left to the trial judge." (paragraph 21)
  3. Precision in pleadings should be proportionate to the issues – "I have noted the cases quoted by Mrs Corkish as to the need for precision in pleadings and the importance thereof .... I do not demure from the principles of such authorative case law. However the sufficiency of the pleadings will be case specific depending on the complexity of the matter at hand" (paragraph 20)
  4. The need for amendment to be proportionate – "It does not to my mind serve the overriding objective in the circumstances of this case bearing in mind the size of the claim to require further amendment" (paragraph 23)

In both cases, the court was heard during argument to express the view that it is disproportionate to consider strike out/summary judgment applications in circumstances where the quantum involved is relatively modest and that ultimately Deemster Doyle's judgment in Interretire v HSBC [2012] MLR N12 still rings true, in that strike out/summary judgment should only be reserved for those "plain and obvious" cases where, on the evidence, the claim or counterclaim is effectively unarguable. In testing the evidence, the court will consider the account of the party being challenged and accept it on face value unless it will be completely contradicted by available contemporaneous documents (paragraph 5 of Magee).

This should serve as a reminder to litigators that the tactical use of such applications in an effort to inhibit progress to an eventual trial will not be encouraged and that strike out/summary judgment should not be seen as a usual step between pleadings and disclosure.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions