Hargreaves & Anor v Greater Manchester Police & Ors

Permission to amend a claim should be refused where the proposed case has no reasonable prospect of success. A claimant’s innocence does not establish that an arrest, detention, investigation or child-protection intervention was unlawful; the relevant question is whether the public authority acted on reasonable grounds and within its powers. Claims alleging misfeasance in public office require unlawful conduct specifically intended to harm the claimant. Malicious prosecution requires, among other matters, lack of reasonable and probable cause and malice. Police officers and child-protection social workers generally owe no actionable duty of care in negligence in performing their core functions. Human Rights Act claims must satisfy the statutory limitation period and establish unlawful, unjustified and disproportionate interference. A claim may also be struck out as an abuse of process where pleadings are incoherent, delay prevents a fair trial, or the proposed conduct of proceedings is unworkable.

Mr and Mrs Hargreaves appealed, with permission from Dobbs J, against Master Eyre’s order dated 4 August 2010 striking out their unserved claim form and dismissing their action. The earlier order followed non-compliance with case-management directions. The appeal had previously been allowed to the extent necessary to consider whether amended proceedings should be permitted.

The proposed claims, exceeding £1 million, alleged unlawful arrest, assault, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, misfeasance in public office, negligence and breaches of the Human Rights Act arising from police conduct and child-protection interventions. The defendants had not been served and took no substantive part. The central issues were whether the amended claims had a reasonable prospect of success and, alternatively, whether continuation would be an abuse of process.

1. Permission to amend and merits. The court was not deciding whether Mr Hargreaves had assaulted Mrs Hargreaves. It had to assess whether the proposed case had a reasonable prospect of success. Permission should be granted only if that threshold was met, subject to overriding reasons making continuation an abuse of process. The evidence did not disclose any prospect of success.
2. Police conduct. The arresting officers had reasonable grounds to investigate the reported domestic assault, arrest Mr Hargreaves and use rear handcuffing in light of the reported assault, Mrs Hargreaves’s apparent injuries and demeanour, and his perceived aggression. His subsequent acquittal did not establish that the arrest or detention had been unlawful. The interviews were fairly conducted, and the charging decision was made by the CPS on apparently reasonable grounds.
3. Public-authority claims. The police were required by their domestic-violence arrangements to report concerns about Mrs Hargreaves and the children to the relevant authorities. The local authority was legally required to investigate the reported risk and was entitled to undertake home visits, assessments, child-protection procedures and related protective measures. The evidence disclosed no targeted malice, unlawful misuse of power or actionable breach of duty.
4. Causes of action and limitation. The negligence claims failed for want of an applicable duty, breach and recoverable loss. Misfeasance required unlawful conduct specifically intended to injure the claimants. The proposed malicious-prosecution claim could not succeed because the CPS made the charging decision and there was no evidence of police manipulation or malice. The handcuffing involved reasonable force. The Human Rights Act claims disclosed no unlawful interference and were in any event out of time.
5. Abuse of process and order. The proposed pleadings and evidence were prolix, repetitive, argumentative and incoherent. Delay, the practical impossibility of conducting a lengthy trial remotely from Japan, and the likely inability to provide security for costs supplied further reasons to refuse permission. The appeal was dismissed, the claim was struck out and there was no order as to costs.

• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): The appeal against Master Eyre’s order dated 4 August 2010 was dismissed. The claim was struck out and there was no order as to costs.
• Permission stage: Dobbs J granted permission to appeal by an order dated 19 January 2011.
• Master Eyre: By order dated 4 August 2010, the claim form was struck out and the action dismissed following non-compliance with an earlier order.