Sinclair v Chief Constable Of West Yorkshire & Anor

Summary judgment is appropriate where the claimant has no real prospect of success. A merely arguable case, based on assumed facts or hypotheses, is insufficient. In a malicious prosecution claim, the claimant must show absence of reasonable and probable cause and malice, as well as the other elements of the tort. The claimant bears the burden of proving absence of reasonable and probable cause. Alleged inaccuracies in material supplied to prosecutors must be material to the decision to prosecute. They must either have caused the prosecution to be brought when it otherwise would not have been, or have misled the prosecutor into believing that reasonable cause existed. An appeal court may interfere with a discretionary decision founded on an error of law. The claim was also properly liable to be struck out as an unwinnable case under the Civil Procedure Rules.

The claimant brought proceedings for malicious prosecution against the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire and BT after criminal proceedings against him were stayed because the trial was considered unmanageable and unfair. He alleged that police tape summaries were inaccurate and that BT’s employee had knowingly allowed them to be used.

Buckley J initially considered the claim liable to be struck out but adjourned the application to permit inspection of BT’s documents. After inspection, he concluded that it was clearly arguable that BT’s employee knew the summaries were unfair. BT appealed, contending that the judge had applied an arguability test rather than the requirement under CPR 24.2 that the claim have a real prospect of success.

1. Appeal allowed. The court held that Buckley J had erred in law by treating the combination of two arguable factual hypotheses as sufficient. The correct question under CPR 24.2 was whether there was a real prospect of success. A merely fanciful, imaginary, unreal or intrinsically unrealistic prospect must be disregarded.
2. There was no evidence from which it could reasonably be inferred that BT’s employee knew that the police summaries were false or inaccurate. The additional document disclosed after the adjournment did not materially alter that position.
3. In any event, proof that the summaries were unfair or inaccurate would not suffice. The claimant also had to show material inaccuracy: either that accurate summaries would not have led the CPS to prosecute, or that the inaccuracies misled the CPS into believing that reasonable cause for prosecution existed when it did not.
4. The essential elements of malicious prosecution included institution or continuation of proceedings by the defendant, absence of reasonable and probable cause, malice, and termination of the proceedings in the claimant’s favour. The claimant bore the burden of proving absence of reasonable and probable cause. Malice and absence of reasonable and probable cause were separate elements which had to unite to produce liability.
5. The claimant had no realistic prospect of establishing absence of reasonable and probable cause or malice. The criminal proceedings had been stayed because of difficulties in preparing the defence, rather than because the claimant had been acquitted or there had been no case to answer.
6. Alternatively, the action should be struck out under CPR 3.4 as an unwinnable claim whose continuation would provide no possible benefit and waste resources. Lord Justice Jonathan Parker agreed with Lord Justice Otton. The order was made under section 11.1 of the Access to Justice Act and permission to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Buckley J’s refusal to strike out the claim was reversed. The claim was struck out under CPR 24.2, alternatively under CPR 3.4.
• Queen’s Bench Division: Buckley J had initially considered the claim liable to be struck out, but adjourned the application for inspection of documents. On reconsideration, he refused the application.