Various Claimants v News Group Newspapers Ltd

For Limitation Act 1980 section 32(1)(b), the relevant facts are the facts necessary to plead and establish the cause of action, rather than merely evidential facts. A claimant must plead those facts adequately and give sufficient information about when, and by what means, they were discovered. A precise date is not invariably required where the relevant discovery plainly occurred within the six-year period. Section 32(2) concerns a deliberate breach of duty connected with the cause of action sued on, or legally correlative to it. Collateral duties to preserve or disclose documents cannot independently trigger section 32(2). Defects in complex pleadings should ordinarily be addressed by further information or amendment where appropriate, rather than strike-out.

The defendant sought to strike out Replies served by claimants in managed privacy litigation. The Replies relied on generic particulars of concealment and invoked section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 against limitation defences. The defendant argued that the Replies failed to identify the relevant cause-of-action facts, the dates of knowledge and the dates on which discovery could reasonably have occurred.

A separate application challenged paragraphs alleging deliberate breaches of duties to preserve or disclose documents, including duties arising from litigation, police requests and professional obligations. The central issues were whether the Replies adequately pleaded section 32(1)(b), and whether collateral breaches of duty could fall within section 32(2).

1. The Replies. The application to strike out the Replies was dismissed. The relevant facts for section 32(1)(b) are facts necessary to establish the cause of action. They must be adequately pleaded so that the defendant knows the case to be met, but a precise date of knowledge is not generally essential. Where discovery events all occurred within, or all occurred outside, the relevant six-year period, the precise date may not matter.
2. In a complex managed litigation involving numerous claimants, causes of action and common allegations, incorporation by reference to generic particulars can adequately identify the relevant facts and the alleged concealment. The pleading need not be exhaustive. Any gaps could be explored through requests for further information or, if necessary, amendment. Strike-out would be disproportionate.
3. Section 32(2). Paragraphs 38 and 39 of the generic particulars were struck out. Section 32(2) is expressly linked to section 32(1). The deliberate breach of duty must concern the duty sued on, or a duty legally correlative to or sufficiently connected with the cause of action. It cannot be founded on separate duties to preserve or disclose documents, duties to assist the police, or professional obligations having no direct connection with the privacy wrongs sued on.
4. The issue could properly be decided on strike-out by assuming the pleaded facts in the claimants’ favour. A factual trial could not make an irrelevant collateral duty relevant under the statutory scheme. The court therefore dismissed the general strike-out application and struck out the challenged paragraphs, leaving any consequential orders for further submissions.