The Court struck out the amended statement of claim and dismissed the proceedings because the plaintiff failed to plead a cause of action in negligence against a barrister, merely asserting that work was 'wrong' or of 'no utility' without identifying the specific conduct complained of, how it constituted negligence, or the causal link between the alleged breach and the loss claimed. The purported response to a request for particulars — consisting of 17 lever arch folders of documents cross-referenced to the request without explanation — was held not to constitute proper particulars and, in any event, could not cure the fundamental deficiency that no material facts supporting a cause of action had been pleaded. The extensive procedural history, including a prior dismissed action, a previously struck-out statement of claim, and non-compliance with four court orders to provide particulars, weighed against granting further leave to replead.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.