King's / Queen's Bench Division of the High Court

KB-2024-000763 - [2025] EWHC 2791 (KB)

Fecha: 30-Oct-2025

NO REASONABLE GROUNDS/MISCONCEIVED

54.

The Defendant relies upon CPR rules 3.4(2) (a) and (b) and the accompanying Practice Direction at 3A1.2-1.3 to strike out paragraphs 33, 36 and 38 of the Particulars on the basis that there are no reasonable grounds to bring them and/or they are misconceived.

Heading
BACKGROUND
INITIAL POLICE DECISION
REVIEW OF INITIAL DECISION
COMPLAINT TO PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS UNIT (“PSU”)
JUDICIAL REVIEW
THIS CIVIL CLAIM
THE LEGAL TESTS ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND ON STRIKE OUT
OVERLAP BETWEEN SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND STRIKE-OUT APPLICATIONS & RELEVANT CASE LAW
THE DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION
Paragraphs 31 (Breach of Duty) and 32 (Breach of Statutory Duty)
Paragraph 34 (Negligent Mis-statement) and Paragraph 35 (Negligent Mis-Statement)
Paragraph 37 (Breach of Contract)
Paragraphs 41, 42 and 43 (Malfeasance, Misfeasance and Nonfeasance)
NO REASONABLE GROUNDS/MISCONCEIVED
Paragraph 33 (Due process)
Paragraph 36 (Professional negligence)
Paragraph 38 (Breach of duty of care)
NO REAL PROSPECT OF SUCCESS
Paragraphs 44 - 46 (Human Rights Act claims)
Conclusions