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

Further, insofar as the allegation of negligent mis-statement at paragraph 34 of the Particulars, is intended to refer to any separate cause of action other than a failure to refer the file to the CPS, and is more simply interpreted as a claim for damages based on some reliance on an alleged indication that a prosecution would be forthcoming which was false and careless, leading to economic loss when that did not materialise, I am bound to conclude that there is no prospect of success on that basis either. That aspect of the claim should be struck out under CPR 3.4 (2) (a) because there are no reasonable grounds for making it. It is incomprehensible according to usual legal principles of English law, as to how the police could be said to owe a duty in such circumstances, even if such a statement had been made, for which there is no evidence, save the Claimant’s recollections of an oral conversation. Such a conversation is not reflected in any papers on the police file. The same points and conclusion can be made regarding the allegations at paragraph 35 of the Particulars where a claim for damages in respect of negligent mis-representation is advanced.