Gulati and others v MGN Ltd [2013] EWHC 3392 (Ch), [2013] All ER (D) 66 (Nov)
There were a number of established principles in respect of applications for summary judgment. The usual way of trying disputes was to have a trial after the normal processes of disclosure and interrogatories had been gone through, though there were exceptions to that. One such exemption was that summary judgment might be given against a claimant if it was clear beyond question that the statement of facts was contradicted by all the documents or other material on which it was based. The simpler the case, the easier it would be to take that view. However, more complex cases were unlikely to be capable of being resolved in that way without conducting a mini-trial on the documents, without discovery and without oral evidence. That was not the object of CPR 24. It was designed to deal with cases that were not fit for trial at all. So there should not be mini-trial. Judgment might be given against the claim if it had no real prospect of succeeding. The question was whether there was a
