KB-2024-000763 - [2025] EWHC 2791 (KB)
Fecha: 30-Oct-2025
Paragraph 37 (Breach of Contract)
Paragraph 37 (Breach of Contract)
The Claimant alleges that the investigating officer told him that a criminal conviction was a certainty, and as such a contract was made between him and the police that a prosecution would follow.
The Defendant denies that any such contract between a member of the public and the police is recognised under English law. They say it is an abuse of process to bring this claim because it represents a collateral attack on the decision of the Administrative Court which considered the fairness of the police operation. I do not consider it necessary to make such a finding, as the answer to the request to strike this allegation out is simple; there are no reasonable grounds to make such an allegation when the law does not recognise any such claim. This Court cannot create new law in this regard. The claim must be struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4 (2) (a).
- 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