JO1 v Garret & Anor

A claim must plead the essential elements of each cause of action relied upon. For misfeasance in public office, the pleading must identify the required state of mind. Deceit requires a false representation, knowledge or recklessness, intended reliance, actual reliance and resulting loss. Malicious falsehood requires publication of a false statement of fact concerning the claimant, together with knowledge or recklessness as to falsity. Causation must be pleaded in relation to the particular tort and cannot rest on speculative alternative scenarios. Where the pleading discloses no real prospect of success, summary judgment is appropriate and permission to appeal may be refused.

The claimant sought permission to appeal from the Master’s decision granting the defendants summary judgment under CPR Part 24. The claim arose from a social worker’s report and interview notes prepared during family proceedings concerning allegations of sexual abuse. The claimant alleged that the notes were forged or false and claimed damages for misfeasance in public office, deceit or fraudulent misrepresentation, and malicious falsehood. The Master considered that the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action, were abusive in relevant respects, and could not establish causation. The central issue was whether an appeal had any real prospect of success.

1. Permission to appeal refused. The proposed appeal had no real prospect of success.
2. The claim in misfeasance in public office was untenable. As summarised by Lord Steyn in Three Rivers DC v Bank of England (No 3) [2000] 2 WLR 1220, the defendant must be a public officer acting in the exercise of public functions, and the claimant must plead either targeted malice or knowledge that the act was unauthorised and probably injurious. The amended pleading did not allege either requisite state of mind. Its allegations concerning the reasons for the alleged forgery were wholly speculative.
3. The deceit claim also failed. The necessary elements include a false representation, knowledge of or recklessness as to its falsity, an intention that the claimant rely on it, actual reliance and resulting loss. The claimant expressly maintained that the notes were forgeries. Any reliance by the Guardian occurred in her capacity as Guardian and could not found the claimant’s personal claim in deceit.
4. The malicious falsehood claim did not identify the false statement of fact said to concern the claimant. In addition, the claim was statute barred and the proposed extension under section 32A of the Limitation Act was hopeless.
5. The causation case was independently defective. The alleged loss depended on complex decisions by several people and on the eventual consent of the parties to the family proceedings. The claimant had not related causation and damage to any particular tort. The case could not properly be treated as an ordinary loss-of-chance claim.

• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): Master Eyre granted the defendants’ application for summary judgment. The claimant sought permission to appeal.
• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): Eady J referred the permission application to an oral hearing. Mr Justice Tugendhat refused permission to appeal.