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

QB-2020-004171 - [2025] EWHC 2773 (KB)

Fecha: 27-Oct-2025

MR JUSTICE FREEDMAN

Chapter number	Subject	Paragraph numbers
I	Introduction	1 - 3
II	Summary of facts	4 - 32
III	The search warrant, refusal of Fourth Application and C1’s arrest	33 - 38
IV	The Criminal proceedings	39 - 43
V	Other matters	44 - 47
VI	Summary judgment/strike out: procedural law	48 - 59
VII	Malicious prosecution: the law	60 - 76
VIII	Malicious prosecution: applying the law as to who is the prosecutor to the facts	77 - 87
IX	Reasonable and probable cause: the law	88 - 99
X	Reasonable and probable cause: applying the law to the facts	100 – 122
XI	Malice: the law	123 – 136
XII	Malice: applying the law to the facts	137 – 142
XIII	Malicious procurement of a warrant: the law	143 – 155
XIV	Malicious procurement of a warrant: the respective cases	156 – 171
XV	Malicious procurement of a warrant: applying the law to the facts	172 – 180
XVI	The tort of misfeasance in public office: the law	181 – 186
XVII	The First Misfeasance Claim based on procurement of search warrant	187 – 188
XVIII	The Second Misfeasance Claim based on brewing licence applications	189 – 210
XIX	Negligence: the claims in negligence	211 – 222
XX	Negligence: the law	223 – 239
XXI	Negligence: applying the law to the facts	240 – 267
XXII	Limitation	268 – 269
XXIII	The Assignment	270
XXIV	Overall conclusions	271 - 287

MR JUSTICE FREEDMAN:

I Introduction

This is an application on behalf of the Defendant (“HMRC”) for summary judgment, alternatively a strike out of the claim, on the basis that it has no real prospect of success and/or the claim does not disclose reasonable grounds. The nature of the claim is that there was a prosecution brought by the Crown Prosecution Service (“the CPS”) against the First Claimant, Julian Whiteway Wilkinson (“C1”) and against the Second Claimant, Rosie Whiteway Wilkinson (“C2”). The prosecution was unsuccessful because it was dismissed at half time against C2 on the basis of no case to answer in view of her lesser role than that of C1 and the jury acquitted C1 after deliberation at the end of the case. C1 and C2 submit that the prosecution should not have been brought against them, nor should there have been an application for a search warrant. They also submit that the prosecution, albeit that of the CPS, was brought in effect by HMRC by itself overbearing the will of the CPS or in effect jointly by HMRC and the CPS.

They submit that the prosecution and the search warrant were brought without reasonable and probable cause (“RPC”) and with malice. It is also a part of the Claimants’ case that the public officials of HMRC were guilty of misfeasance in public office in connection with their various actions relating to the business of the brewery businesses referred to below as a result of which the businesses were destroyed and the Claimants suffered loss and damage. In the alternative, it is submitted that HMRC owed a duty of care to the Claimants and/or to the brewery businesses whether on the basis of negligent misstatements or assumptions of responsibility giving rise to loss and damage.

HMRC seek summary judgment in respect of the entirety of the claims, alternatively that the claims should be struck out. The hearing lasted 3 days. The pleadings were voluminous. In addition to substantial skeleton arguments, there were long speaking notes and a lot of documents were presented before the Court as well as numerous authorities. It will be necessary to consider first the facts and then the principles about such applications. In respect of each cause of action, there will be considered the pleaded cases and rival submissions, the relevant law and the application of the law to the facts.