Lloyd v Jagpal & Anor

An application to strike out a statement of case under CPR rule 3.4 is discretionary. The court should consider whether the pleaded case discloses reasonable grounds, constitutes an abuse of process, or involves procedural non-compliance warranting that remedy. Defects in identifying documents or images do not ordinarily justify strike out where the resulting difficulty can readily be cured by a request for information, disclosure, or an application under CPR Part 18. The court should also consider whether the alleged disadvantage remains and whether pursuing the application would be disproportionate and wasteful.

The claimant alleged that an employee of the second defendant downloaded private images from her mobile telephone and sent them to newspapers. She advanced claims including breach of contract, copyright infringement, breach of confidence, invasion of privacy and a civil wrong under the Data Protection Act, together with vicarious liability against the second defendant.

The second defendant applied to strike out the claim under CPR rule 3.4, contending that the particulars of claim failed to identify the images and therefore disclosed no reasonable grounds, constituted an abuse of process, or failed to comply with procedural requirements. An alternative application for summary judgment was abandoned. Before the hearing, the claimant supplied copies of the images.

1. The application to strike out was dismissed. The alternative application for summary judgment was no longer pursued.
2. The pleaded case disclosed reasonable grounds for bringing the claim. It was not an abuse of process. The particulars alleged that the downloaded data included highly personal and private images, identified the alleged wrongful acts, and set out the causes of action relied upon.
3. The second defendant’s asserted difficulty in pleading to the claim because the images had not been individually identified had, in any event, been removed when the claimant supplied digital copies of the images. Any such difficulty could readily have been resolved by a request in correspondence or under CPR Part 18.
4. The power under CPR rule 3.4 is discretionary. Even where particulars are not full, the court should consider whether the defect causes a continuing forensic disadvantage and whether the requested strike out would be proportionate. The pursuit of this application, without first seeking the images or identifying the disclosure required, had caused needless expense and wasted time, with costs approaching £50,000.

In the circumstances, it would have been wrong to exercise the discretion to strike out the statement of case.