Colman v General Medical Council

Claims pleaded as conspiracy to injure, unlawful interference or breach of contract must identify the legally recognised cause of action, the essential elements, the relevant defendants, and the loss claimed. Damage to reputation or feelings alone does not establish the economic loss required for the relevant economic torts.

The court may strike out pleadings which are incoherent, inadequately particularised or abusive. It may also grant summary judgment where the claimant has no realistic prospect of success. The rule in Henderson v Henderson prevents parties from re-litigating matters already decided, or matters which should have been raised in earlier proceedings. A claim by a GMC member for payment for work undertaken in connection with an investigation failed where no contractual or statutory entitlement to payment was shown.

Dr Colman brought proceedings against the General Medical Council and ten individuals. She alleged conspiracy to injure, unlawful interference and breach of contract or of rights arising from her membership of the GMC. The allegations concerned her earlier erasure from the Medical Register, statements made around her election to the GMC, her treatment after election, alleged failure to train her for Professional Conduct Committee work, and the decision not to empanel her.

She also brought a separate claim against the GMC for unpaid fees and allowances said to relate to work undertaken in connection with an independent external review. The defendants applied to strike out the claims or obtain summary judgment. The court considered pleading defects, limitation, abuse of process, issue estoppel, the rule in Henderson v Henderson, and the absence of any real prospect of success.

1. The claims in action HQ06X01026 were struck out against all defendants under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b), and summary judgment was entered for all defendants under CPR 24.2. The pleaded claims were seriously deficient and failed to disclose properly comprehensible causes of action.
2. Conspiracy to injure required a combination or agreement, a predominant purpose of injuring the claimant, and resulting loss or damage. A defendant could defend the claim by showing that the primary purpose was to further or protect legitimate interests. The pleaded case identified neither the alleged combinations nor facts supporting the requisite predominant purpose or recoverable economic loss.
3. Unlawful interference required unlawful means, an intention to cause damage, and consequential economic loss. The conduct had to be aimed, directed or targeted at the claimant. The pleadings identified neither the unlawful means nor facts capable of establishing the necessary intention or economic damage.
4. There was no recognised cause of action consisting of breach of rights arising from election to the GMC. If a contractual claim was intended, the pleading had to identify the contract, its terms, the breaches and the resulting loss.
5. The court held that the present grievances were the same or similar grievances advanced in different clothing in earlier proceedings. The rule in Henderson v Henderson could not be bypassed by suing officers or employees individually after unsuccessful proceedings against the GMC. The claims concerning the PCC’s decision and the claimant’s entitlement to sit on PCC panels were also subject to the earlier judicial-review determination.
6. The separate claim for £88,950 in fees and allowances was struck out and summary judgment entered for the GMC. Although Dr Colman might have spent substantial time preparing submissions and communicating with the independent reviewer, no legal obligation to pay for that work was established. The claim was described as a sham and an unattractive device to avoid or defer costs liabilities.
7. The application for an extended civil restraint order was adjourned to a date to be fixed.

This was a first-instance decision. The judgment records earlier proceedings involving the claimant and the GMC, including refusal of permission for judicial review in [2004] EWHC 634 (Admin), the striking out of earlier Queen’s Bench proceedings, and refusal of permission to appeal by Rix LJ. Those earlier decisions formed part of the court’s abuse-of-process analysis.