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

Similar to submissions concerning paragraph 37 of the Particulars, the Defendant sought to persuade me these causes of action were an abuse seeking to undermine the decision of another court.

In pursuit of a claim for malfeasance, the Claimant asserted that “the police refused to pursue matters to court as they were duty bound.”

In pursuit of a claim for misfeasance, the Claimant asserted that “the willingness of the Metropolitan Police to contest this matter ..all the way up to Judicial Review despite being in the wrong on this matter, shows, complete and utter bad faith.” Additionally the Claimant argued that a failure to uphold his complaint was actionable as part of this claim.

Given my previous conclusions that any attack on the legitimacy of earlier Court decisions relating to the same issues is an abuse, I need add nothing further than to say these claims are bound to fail and should be struck out. Insofar as any suggestion that the failure to uphold his complaint, was not part of the judicial review process, I agree with the Defendant that there is no real prospect of success, although I am inclined to the view that the subject matter of the complaint did relate to the matters considered within the judicial review. The VRR report clearly stated that judicial review was available as a process to challenge the decision, if the Claimant disagreed with it, and that was a course of action then undertaken by the Claimant, and dismissed by the Court. On that basis this claim too should be struck out on the basis of abuse; the Claimant’s allegation seeks to undermine a previous decision of the Court.

The claim for non-feasance covers similar ground to the previous 2 claims, but as such a tort is only recognised overseas, but not in the English jurisdiction, that too must be struck out, although I would do so under CPR 3.4(2) (a).