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

It has been found above in connection with the malicious procurement of the search warrant that there was no real prospect of being able to show from any errors or omissions in the application for a search warrant any basis for a case of malice against Mr Muldoon or Ms Chipperton. There was no evidence on which a court could infer malice or which could be placed before a jury to consider malice. Likewise, even allowing for the appropriate adjustments that the case is only at the summary judgment/strike out stage, there is no real prospect that the case will improve such that there might be a case to answer in respect of malice by reference to the actions or omissions of Mr Muldoon and/or Ms Chipperton in respect of the procurement of the warrant. This applies both in respect of a case of targeted or untargeted malice.

There is no evidence on which to conclude that there is a real prospect that at trial it might appear that they or either of them were actuated by malice. There is no evidence to the effect that they were acting out of spite or ill will to the Claimants or out of a desire to cause them or any of them damage. Nor is there evidence that they or either of them did not have an honest belief that the warrant was not justified or that they had no power to make the application for a search warrant or that they were acting in some way unlawfully. Whichever way the case is framed, there is no basis for an allegation of malice required for the tort of misfeasance in public office or any other tort in respect of which malice was an essential ingredient.