Baxendale- Walker v Middleton & Ors

Claims alleging conspiracy, misfeasance in public office and related wrongdoing may be struck out or summarily dismissed where the pleaded case has no real prospect of success. Serious allegations against reputable professionals require cogent evidence; speculative assertions do not suffice.

Statements and conduct connected with disciplinary investigations and proceedings may attract absolute privilege or immunity. A civil claim cannot ordinarily be used as a collateral attack on an earlier final decision of a competent tribunal. Judicial and witness immunities extend, where the relevant functional and procedural conditions are satisfied, to disciplinary tribunals and participants in their proceedings.

The claimant, a former solicitor, brought a claim for approximately £230 million against regulatory officers, the Law Society, accountants, the chairman and the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. He alleged conspiracies, malicious falsehood and misfeasance in public office arising from investigations into his tax schemes and disciplinary proceedings which resulted in suspension and striking off.

The defendants applied to strike out the replacement Particulars of Claim and for summary judgment. The issues included the prospects of success, limitation, privilege and immunity, collateral attack, and whether the Tribunal could be vicariously liable for its chairman.

1. Disposition. The claims against the Law Society defendants, the Deloitte defendants, Mr Isaacs and the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal were struck out. The court relied on the absence of a real prospect of success and, where applicable, immunity, witness privilege, collateral attack and the Tribunal’s legal status.
2. On summary judgment, the claim had to show a real, rather than fanciful, prospect of success. The court could analyse evidence and take account of evidence realistically available at trial, but should not conduct a mini-trial. Allegations of fraud or other serious wrongdoing required cogent evidence and could not rest on speculative inferences.
3. The claims against the Law Society defendants had no real prospect of success. The pleaded allegations concerning the investigation, expert report and adjudication panels were unsubstantiated. Their conduct was also protected by absolute privilege and immunity because it was connected with quasi-judicial disciplinary investigations and proceedings. The claim additionally constituted an abuse of process because it sought to attack earlier decisions which had been, or could have been, challenged by appeal.
4. The claims against the Deloitte defendants likewise had no real prospect of success. The pleaded material did not establish that the Langley Report deliberately misstated the law or was produced dishonestly. The report was protected by witness privilege, which extended to those assisting its preparation and to the firm said to be vicariously liable.
5. The claim against Mr Isaacs depended on telephone conversations which did not support the pleaded allegation of targeted malice. His conduct as chairman of the Tribunal was protected by judicial immunity. The Tribunal was not his employer, and it had no separate corporate personality or legal capacity to incur the alleged liability.
6. The court declined to strike out the Deloitte conspiracy claims solely on limitation or damages grounds, but those claims were struck out on other grounds. The proceedings were ordered to be struck out accordingly.