![Case Nos: CA-2024-002167 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1230](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_Sjvxvlx.png){kind=logo}
Conclusions
Conclusions
Accordingly, we set aside the order made by Ritchie J on 29 July 2024. XGY’s claims against the police and the CPS based on the Hampshire disclosure are struck out on the principal ground that they are caught by the core immunity (the CPS) and its established extension (the police). In addition, we would reinstate HHJ Brownhill’s conclusion that, on summary judgment, XGY has failed to make out the necessary criterion under section 7 at the time of the Hampshire disclosure, so that the HRA claims based on the Hampshire disclosure are doomed to fail in any event.
We wish to emphasise that nothing that we have said is intended to detract from the consequences for XGY of the disclosure of her Hampshire address. We would wish to express our sympathy for her and the situation in which she was placed. However, public policy and long-established principle mean that she does not have a legal remedy in these proceedings for what happened.
- Heading
- The Lady Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill CJ, Dame Victoria Sharp P. and Lord Justice Coulson Introduction
- The core immunity and its extension
- Immunity from negligence claims by clients
- The Factual Background
- XGY’s Claims and the Applications To Strike Out/Reverse Summary Judgment
- The Judgment of HHJ Brownhill: A Summary
- The Judgment of Ritchie J: A Summary
- The Issues on Appeal
- The Relevant Context: A Bail Hearing
- The CPS Appeal: Is the CPS advocate Protected By The Core Immunity?
- The Police Appeal: Are They Protected By An Immunity?
- Both Appeals: Does The Immunity Apply To All of XGY’s Claims?
- The DPA and the HRA
- Both Appeals: Did XGY Meet The Section 7 Criterion?
- HHJ Brownhill’s Conclusions
- The Approach of Ritchie J
- Conclusions