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

The Defendant relies on three grounds for their application as follows;

The Defendant relies upon CPR rules 3.4(2)(b) to strike out paragraphs 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 41, 42 and 43 of the Particulars. They say their failure to refer the matter to the CPS (which is the subject matter of each of these paragraphs) has already been challenged through judicial review proceedings, and failed. The Defendant relies upon the principle of issue estoppel. That principle operates where an issue, which is common to previous proceedings and the current ones, has already being decided by another court on an earlier occasion, such that the earlier decision is binding on the parties and should not be relitigated. The Defendant referred to the relevant case law, notably Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd [2013] UKSC 46 in their skeleton argument, and for brevity I will not repeat it. Suffice to say that I am bound by that decision of the Supreme Court.

The Claimant said in his skeleton argument that the decisions of the two judges in the judicial review proceedings were “flawed and faulty”, that the judges had demonstrated a “lack of professional curiosity” and uncritically accepted what defence counsel had argued.