KB-2024-002095 - [2025] EWHC 1925 (KB)

These are my reasons for the order I made following the hearing of the Defendant’s application dated 10 December 2014 to strike out the Claimant’s claim as an abuse of process, and/or for failing to disclose a cause of action and/or for failing to comply with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules. The application was adjourned from 13 May 2025 by Order of HHJ Grimshaw sitting as a Deputy Master. It is supported by the first witness statement of Shelley Barker dated 10 December 2024. The application is responded to by the Response of the Claimant dated 25 February 2025, not signed by a statement of truth.

The Claimant failed to attend the hearing of the application and provided no explanation to the court or to the Defendant for his non-attendance, although he did provide in advance to the court and to the Defendant a skeleton argument for use at the hearing on 8 July 2025. Accordingly, although I gave judgment at the hearing, I considered that it may be of assistance to him to have written reasons for my decision, which are set out in this judgment.

At the hearing Counsel for the Defendant explained to the court that the Defendant now intended to apply for the claims for negligence, misfeasance in public office, malicious prosecution, and breach of Art 6 ECHR to be struck out and the remaining parts of the Claim Form and Amended Particulars of Claim to be struck out under CPR r 3.4(2)(b) and (c), with the Claimant being given the opportunity to file and serve Substituted Particulars of Claim, subject to conditions intended to make the remaining claims more coherent.

The factual background is set out in the Amended Particulars of Claim (APOC) at paragraphs 3 to 10, and in the Defence. In summary, it arises out of an incident on 28 December 2023, at the Claimant’s flat in Whitfield Street London W1, when at about 02.00am officers of the Metropolitan Police attended in response to a complaint from a person whom the Claimant had met on the dating App Grindr who had gone to the Claimant’s flat at his invitation. The complainant had informed the police that the Claimant had filmed him engaging in sexual activity with the Claimant without his consent, so that potentially an offence had been committed under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 as amended by the Voyeurism Act 2019. The Claimant does not deny that filming took place, but states that implied consent was given, due to the presence of clear warning signs on the Claimant’s CCTV system, and that other requirements of the relevant legislation were not met. The Claimant was arrested, handcuffed from behind and transported to the police station. He was held until 12.27pm on 28 December 2023 when he was released without charge.