Steer clear of poor drafting: Claimant gets the "Red Flag" in McLaren supercar strike out decision (David Alan Kyte v McLaren Automotive Limited & Stratstone Sports Cars Limited [2026] EWHC 1126 (TCC) )

Facts

The Claimant, Mr Kyte, was the owner of a McLaren Sports Car ("the Vehicle") which he had purchased in May 2015 for £1.029m from the Second Defendant, Stratstone Sports Cars Limited.

There was an accident in June 2015, following which the Claimant engaged McLaren Automotive Limited, the First Defendant, to rebuild the Vehicle in the period to December 2015. Thereafter, the Second Defendant undertook various repairs, service and maintenance works on the Vehicle during 2016 and 2017, the last of which was 3 April 2017.

On 20 October 2017, the Vehicle caught fire whilst the Claimant was driving it, rendering it a total loss.

In April 2024, the Claimant commenced proceedings against both Defendants, alleging that the fire was caused by breach of contract and/or negligence and seeking £2.1m based on the value of the Vehicle at the time of the fire.

The issues before the Court

Particulars of Claim were served on 6 February 2025 and the Defences served in May 2025. The Defendants both contended that the Claimant had failed to properly particularise his case; foreshadowing their respective Strike Out applications.

Defendants' position

The Defendants' applications were based on the following main points:

• The Claimant's Particulars of Claim failed to set out essential facts needed to constitute a cause of action and were insufficiently clear to enable the Defendants to know the case it had to meet; and

• It should not be assumed that further or more precise information as to the cause of the fire would come to light during the course of proceedings owing to the passage of time since the fire and the number of expert examinations that had already been carried out.

Claimant's position

The Claimant's position was that the cause of the fire and the relevant breaches were adequately pleaded on the following main points:

• In particular, cases where a fire has destroyed the evidence which could show its precise cause, the Court is prepared to infer that the fire was caused by pleaded acts of negligence and will require less particularisation of the mechanism of causation than would otherwise be the case (utilising the doctrine of "res ipsa loquitur"); and

• Where a claimant alleges breach of a contractual term giving rise to strict liability, the Court will apply an approach to particularisation comparable to that used for no‑fault liability claims under the Consumer Protection Act 1987.

Underlying the Claimant's position was an emphasis on the imbalance of information between the Claimant and Defendant. The Claimant therefore also considered that the Court could be confident that further information would come to light in the course of disclosure which would have, at the least, the potential to substantiate the allegations made. 

Points for the Court to Consider

The Court considered it had three headline points to address:

1. The approach to be taken as to the adequacy of the particularisation of the Claimant's case;
2. The adequacy of the Particulars of Claim in light of the conclusion reached in (1) above; and
3. If the Particulars of Claim are otherwise apt to be struck out, whether the Claimant should be given an opportunity to remedy any deficiencies.

Court's Findings

Mr Justice Eyre refused the opportunity for the Claimant to amend its pleadings and struck out the claim in its entirety.

Mr Justice Eyre held:

• The Claimant must plead its case on causation with sufficient particularity to enable the Court and other parties to understand what the case is. The Claimant is entitled to say that the relevant event must have been due to one of two or more causes and that whichever of those in fact caused the event gives rise to liability. However, to do so, it must adequately identify the relevant fault or faults on the part of the Defendant and explain how each of those causes flowed from such fault. The requirement is that the Claimant plead and show the way in which any such alleged defect caused the fire.

• There is no special approach to be applied in cases of damage by fire. The Court will be prepared to infer that the fire was the result of breach of contract or negligence as alleged, but that is a matter of common sense and based on the facts of the claim. But this does not remove the need for a Claimant to identify, plead and prove the relevant failing.

• The Court must be astute to avoid "Micawberism" – it will not be appropriate to allow a party the opportunity to remedy defects or plead a proper case if there is no real prospect that this can be done. It follows that in order for the Claimant to set out a properly particularised claim identifying a cause of action against both Defendants, it needs to identify a relevant defect; explain how that defect is said to have caused the fire; identify the breach of contract or negligence alleged against the Defendant and explain how that breach or negligence caused the defect in question.

• It was not sufficient to plead a potential cause for the fire. The Claimant must go further and set out the basis for saying that cause was the consequence of a breach of contract or from negligence. Unless that is done neither the Defendants nor the Court will be able to properly identify the issues or address them.

• Res Ipsa will only come into play and enable the Court to find a claim established in the absence of a rebuttal if the circumstance is such as it would not have happened without negligence and if the object in question was under the sole control of the Defendant at the relevant time; that being when the alleged negligence occurred.

• Given the time period that had lapsed since the fire and proceedings, it was too late for the Claimant to be given an opportunity to remedy the deficiencies in its pleadings.

Practical Takeaways

CPR 16.4(1)(a) stipulates that Particulars of Claim "must include (a) a concise statement of the facts on which the claimant relies". Even where there are complex issues and identifying a defect may prove to be difficult, proper particularisation remains fundamental to drafting.

When drafting pleadings, think about what purpose the pleading serves as explained by Cockerill J in King v Stiefel [2021] EWHC 1045 (Comm).

• Does the pleading enable a party to know the case it has to meet?
• Does the pleading ensure that the parties can properly prepare for trial and that unnecessary costs are not expended or court time required chasing points which are not in issue or lead nowhere? and
• Does the process of the pleading operate as a critical audit for ensuring that there is a complete cause of action or defence (if not, it should).

Parties should not rely on something 'turning up' during the course of proceedings or disclosure to remedy any pleading deficiencies; the necessary elements of the claim need to be identified at the outset without reliance on a Court inferring negligence or a breach of contract – pleadings should be specific and supported with evidence.

This decision echoes the conclusions of the Court of Appeal in Wilson where heads of loss were struck out from the claimant's case for being inadequately pleaded and poorly particularised. You can read our article on that here.