TCC declines strike-out despite false allegation in £13.5million joint venture claim
The High Court has refused to strike out a £13.5 million professional negligence claim despite finding that the claimant’s particulars of claim contained a false and highly material allegation verified by a statement of truth.
In Kevin Demirci Properties Limited v Huw Griffiths Architects Limited [2026] EWHC 353 (TCC), Deputy Judge Alan Bates, sitting in the Technology and Construction Court, held that the inclusion of the false allegation amounted to serious litigation misconduct. However, he concluded that striking out the claim would not be a just or proportionate response.
Kevin Demirci Properties Limited alleges that Huw Griffiths Architects Limited provided incompetent architectural services in connection with a proposed student accommodation development in Swansea. The claimant says delays and design failures prevented the scheme from proceeding and caused substantial financial loss.
The controversy centred on paragraph 13 of the original particulars of claim, which asserted that the claimant had entered into a joint venture agreement with Sir Robert McAlpine in March 2017. On that basis, the pleading claimed losses exceeding £13.5 million. In fact, no joint venture agreement had ever been concluded.
The false allegation was verified by a statement of truth signed by a self-employed barrister authorised to conduct litigation. The judge found that signing a statement of truth in respect of a document asserting facts known to be false constitutes improper litigation conduct and is viewed with the utmost seriousness.
The defendant applied to strike out the claim and sought permission to bring contempt proceedings against the claimant’s sole director, Mr Garip Demirci. The court rejected both applications.
Applying the principles in Summers v Fairclough Homes Ltd, the judge held that strike-out is a draconian remedy and must serve a protective, not punitive, purpose. He found no intention by Mr Demirci to mislead the court. Instead, the inclusion of the false allegation resulted from what he described as “chaos and incompetence” in the drafting process, principally attributable to the barrister who signed the statement of truth.
The judge declined to permit contempt proceedings, finding no strong prima facie case that Mr Demirci lacked an honest belief in the truth of the pleading.
However, the court expressed serious professional conduct concerns about the barrister’s role in signing the statement of truth without proper confirmation of the underlying facts. The judgment will be sent to the Bar Standards Board for consideration of any regulatory action.
The claimant was granted permission to amend its particulars of claim extensively. The court also rejected a separate strike-out argument based on alleged lack of contractual privity and confirmed that the claimant may rely on a different architectural expert.
Directions for the further conduct of the proceedings will follow.