A well-timed application to strike out all or part of an opponent's claim or defence can be one of the sharpest instruments in a litigator's toolkit; it can dispose of cases swiftly and cost-effectively, produce favourable costs orders and deliver strategic and reputational advantages. However, a poorly judged application can backfire, damaging a party's reputation and even strengthening their opponent's position. In high-profile cases, where public opinion has an impact, the stakes are even greater. Recent applications involving actor Noel Clarke, the Duke of Sussex and MP Andrew Bridgen illustrate how attempts to strike out claims can fuel both positive and negative public perception.
The legal test for strike out
The mechanism is designed to filter out baseless claims early. Under Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 3.4(2), a court may strike out a claim or defence if:
- It discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim.
- It is an abuse of the court’s process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of proceedings.
- There has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction, or court order.
Noel Clarke
In January 2025, Noel Clarke attempted to strike out the Guardian's defence to his defamation claim, following their publication of allegations of sexual misconduct against him. His application, which relied on the abuse ground (CPR 3.4 (2) (b)), failed for lack of evidence in support of his allegations, including that the Guardian had fabricated evidence. The failed application, which Mrs Justice Steyn said, "should not have been publicly made and publicly aired", rather than diminishing the allegations against him, likely strengthened public perception that there was a case to answer, harming his reputation further. His attempt to position himself as a victim, in a case such as this, was arguably tone deaf, and the application could also be viewed as an attempt at silencing legitimate claims. In this case, it shone more light on them.
The Duke of Sussex
Successfully defending an application for strike out of parts of a claim can weaken an opponent's overall position, forcing them to reconsider their strategy and settlement options. The Duke of Sussex faced a strike-out application in July 2023 from the Sun’s publisher, News Group Newspapers (NGN), in his phone-hacking claim. NGN argued that his claim was time-barred and should be struck out. However, the court refused to dismiss key parts of his case, including the allegations concerning unlawful information gathering. Instead of shutting down the litigation, the application brought greater scrutiny to the allegations, fuelling media coverage and public interest. Approximately eighteen months later the case settled, just before trial. Prince Harry received a "full and unequivocal apology", arguably a second reputational win in the proceedings.
MP Andrew Bridgen
MP Andrew Bridgen filed a defamation claim against MP Matt Hancock in relation to a tweet that was widely interpretated as being about him. Mr Hancock's application contended that Mr Bridgen's claim failed to properly articulate how the allegedly defamatory statement referred to him, thereby disclosing no reasonable grounds, relying on CPR 3.4 (2) (a). In this application, despite Mrs Justice Steyn finding that the pleading was defective and in part irrelevant, the underlying claim was allowed to continue; she considered that Mr Bridgen would have little difficulty establishing a reference innuendo. Accordingly, he was given the opportunity to propose amendments to his case. Steyn J awarded Mr Hancock 90% of his costs in the application. This highlights how risky applications of this nature can be for a respondent, even where the court finds that there is a case to answer and does not allow the application for strike-out.
A strike-out application can be an ace card, when used appropriately. If successful, it can dispose of weak claims early, saving time and legal costs. However, when it fails it can give oxygen to allegations, increase legal costs and damage public perception. They should only be used when there is clear legal merit, otherwise they risk being an own goal.
Want to hear more from us? 
