DAVID BOYCE v DEPARTMENT OF WORK AND PENSIONS

A claim may be struck out as an abuse of process where it seeks to relitigate issues raised, or which could and should have been raised, in earlier proceedings. The claims need not be expressed in identical words if they arise from the same facts and raise the same legal issues. A party dissatisfied with an earlier decision must pursue an appeal rather than recommence the claim. For these purposes, there may be privity of interest between a Minister, the relevant government department and its officials. A change or alleged variation in the department’s name does not create a legally distinct defendant where the distinction is merely semantic.

The claimant brought proceedings against the Department for Work and Pensions and the Secretary of State, seeking substantial damages for alleged breach of contract, harassment, tortious interference, conspiracy and breach of duty arising from sanctions affecting his Jobseeker’s Allowance and alleged resulting health consequences.

Earlier county court proceedings had involved substantially the same factual allegations and heads of claim. The contractual and tortious claims had been struck out, and the remaining Human Rights Act claim had subsequently been dismissed as time-barred. The defendants applied to strike out the new claim under CPR 3.4(2)(b), alternatively CPR 3.4(2)(a), or to stay it under CPR 3.4(4). The claimant sought a stay pending appeals concerning the earlier proceedings.

1. The claim was struck out. The present proceedings arose from the same statutory Jobseeker’s Allowance sanctions regime and the same alleged harm as the earlier proceedings. Differences in wording did not alter the identity of the underlying facts or legal issues.
2. The claimant’s contention that the contractual and tortious claims had not previously been considered failed. Those claims had been included in the earlier Particulars of Claim and had been struck out by the county court. A dissatisfied litigant’s remedy was an appeal, not the recommencement of the claims.
3. The court applied the modern principles of res judicata summarised in Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd [2014] AC 160, including the principle that matters which could and should have been raised earlier may not be raised in later abusive proceedings. The defendants therefore succeeded under CPR 3.4(2)(b).
4. There was privity of interest between a Minister of State, the relevant department and the officials serving the Minister. The assertion that the Department for Work and Pensions was a private company did not assist the claimant because the sanctions decisions were statutory rather than governed by private law.
5. The distinction between “Department for Work and Pensions” and “Department of Work and Pensions” was semantic only, having regard to section 17 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947.
6. The claimant’s application to stay the defendants’ applications pending county court appeals was refused. Those appeals concerned the earlier proceedings and would not assist the High Court in determining the discrete issues before it. The alternative strike-out ground and the defendants’ costs-based stay application were not determined.

Not stated in the judgment.