Cleeves v University of Oxford

A pleading may be struck out as abusive where it is unreasonably vague or incoherent, so that the defendant cannot identify the case to meet or the court cannot identify the case to decide. The risk of substantial unrecoverable costs and obstruction of the just disposal of proceedings is relevant. Strike-out remains available even where the claim might disclose some prospect of success. A litigant in person is allowed appropriate procedural latitude, but that does not excuse unsupported allegations of dishonesty, failure to plead essential facts, or unreasonable conduct of the litigation.

The claimant sued the governing body of the University of Oxford for damages arising from alleged misuse of research, breach of copyright, contractual and statutory breaches, human-rights violations, and mishandling of complaints. The defendant applied to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4(2), alternatively for summary judgment under CPR Part 24, and for further particulars and security for costs. The claimant applied to strike out the defence. She also appealed an earlier order striking out her claim for procedural non-compliance.

The appeal was allowed by consent and the claim reinstated. The central issue was whether the pleaded claim was sufficiently intelligible and whether its continuation would constitute an abuse of process or obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings.

1. The appeal against Master McCloud’s order was allowed by consent. The claim was reinstated because the earlier strike-out had apparently resulted from court-office confusion concerning information supplied for listing.

2. The defendant’s application succeeded. The Particulars of Claim were struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(b) as abusive or otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings. The claimant had not identified the parts of her confirmation paper allegedly reproduced in the publications, nor explained why the defendant’s answer that the research reflected a general view was wrong. The pleading therefore did not enable the defendant to know the case it had to meet or the court to know the case it had to decide.

3. In assessing abuse, the court considered the risk of unnecessary and irrecoverable expense, the defendant’s resulting difficulty in defending the claim, and the claimant’s unreasonable conduct of the litigation. The repeated unsupported allegations of dishonesty, theft and conspiracy were a further manifestation of abuse. A claim may be struck out on this ground even if it might disclose a reasonable prospect of success.

4. The claim also appeared substantially out of time. The copyright, contract and statutory-duty claims appeared subject to a six-year limitation period, while the human-rights claims were subject to a one-year period capable of extension. The court regarded the merits as poor, but did not decide that there was no possible prospect of success because the pleading was unclear. No lesser case-management order would adequately address the abusive nature of the proceedings.

5. The claimant’s application to strike out the defence was irrelevant following the strike-out and would in any event have been refused. The defence was a proper and proportionate response to an unclear claim. Consequential applications could be made in writing within seven days of formal hand-down.

1. High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) — The appeal against Master McCloud’s order dated 21 October 2016 was allowed by consent, and the claim was reinstated. The defendant’s application was then granted and the Particulars of Claim were struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(b).