Piepenbrock v London School of Economics and Political Science and others

The court considered applications by the LSE and Associated Newspapers Limited to strike out or enter summary judgment against the Claimant's wide-ranging Particulars of Claim. The relevant procedural controls were CPR 3.4 (strike out), CPR 24.2 (summary judgment) and CPR 3.4(4) (stay where costs from an earlier struck-out claim remain unpaid). The judge applied the established summary-judgment/strike-out test (no real prospect of success) and principles on abuse of process/Henderson v Henderson and issue estoppel.

The court held that the pleaded negligence claim did not disclose an arguable duty of care and therefore was bound to fail; claims under the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998 were not capable of succeeding because the pleaded conduct did not fall within the services or public-function provisions or involve public authorities; many Protection from Harassment Act 1997 allegations were time‑barred, precluded by earlier findings or otherwise abusive or incapable of amounting to harassment by publication; much of the Data Protection pleading was inadequately particularised and some parts were abusive or time-barred.

Accordingly the court struck out (granted the Defendants' CPR 3.4 applications) in respect of the pleaded negligence, the PHA 1997, the EQA 2010 and the HRA 1998 claims; certified some heads as totally without merit (negligence, EQA, HRA); and ordered that the limited remaining data‑protection allegations (relating to certain subject access requests) be stayed under CPR 3.4(4) until the Claimant pays the costs ordered against him in the earlier 2020 claim.

This judgment arises from an application to strike out and/or obtain summary judgment against the Claimant's Particulars of Claim, and from a related application by the Claimant to vary an order transferring the case to the Media & Communications List.

• Nature of the proceedings: the Claimant (a litigant in person) pleaded a broad claim against the LSE (and various individual LSE officers) and Associated Newspapers Limited (and named journalists/editors) in negligence, harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, breaches of the Human Rights Act 1998, and breaches of the Data Protection Act 2018/GDPR. The Defendants applied under CPR 3.4 and CPR 24 for strike out/summary judgment and, alternatively, for stays and case management orders.
• Relief sought by defendants: strike out the Particulars of Claim in whole or part (CPR 3.4(2)(a),(b),(c)); summary judgment (CPR 24.2); stay under CPR 3.4(4) until the Claimant paid costs ordered in an earlier 2020 claim; and related protective/ancillary directions including restricting direct contact to defendants' solicitors.

Issues the court framed included: (i) whether the Particulars disclosed reasonable grounds (CPR 3.4(2)(a)); (ii) whether the Particulars were an abuse of process under Henderson v Henderson or for other reasons; (iii) whether the claim or parts had no real prospect of success (CPR 24.2); (iv) whether a stay under CPR 3.4(4) was appropriate because costs from the earlier claim remained unpaid; and (v) whether the case should remain on the MAC List.

Court's reasoning (concise account):

• The court applied the strike-out/summary-judgment test (no realistic prospect of success) and emphasised incremental development of the law where a duty of care is novel (Robinson and authorities cited).
• On negligence the Claimant sought to create a duty of care owed by publishers/sources to the subject of journalism to avoid foreseeable psychiatric harm. The court found no precedent supporting such a duty in these circumstances, and concluded that recognising it would involve a far-reaching extension of the law, inadequately justified on policy grounds (including conflict with established defamation law and freedom of expression considerations). The negligence pleading therefore disclosed no arguable duty and was struck out.
• Claims under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 were for the most part time‑barred, precluded by prior findings (2018 Judgment and the Employment Tribunal), or incapable of amounting to harassment by publication (which requires rare/exceptional circumstances and an objective assessment that the publication amounted to oppressive/unacceptable conduct likely to sustain criminal liability). Where allegations could and should have been raised in earlier proceedings, the court characterised them as abusive.
• The Equality Act 2010 causes of action (both sex and disability strands) were not pleaded in a manner that placed the conduct within Part 3 (services) or public-function material, and so could not sensibly be brought in the High Court; the Employment Tribunal remained the correct forum for employment discrimination complaints. Those claims were struck out as bound to fail.
• Claims under the Human Rights Act 1998 failed because the defendants’ actions (newspaper publication and related conduct) were not acts of public authorities within the meaning of the Act.
• Data protection claims were in part inadequately particularised; some allegations replicated matters already litigated or were abusive. The limited remaining complaint about three recent subject access requests could not be disposed of on the present pleadings but, because of the unpaid costs order from the 2020 Claim, the court stayed any surviving data-protection claims under CPR 3.4(4) until payment of the on-account costs ordered (a limited stay was ordered, with a specified payment period).
• The claim was properly in the MAC List and should remain there given the surviving issues.

Subsidiary and consequential findings: the court (i) certified as totally without merit the pleaded negligence, the EQA and the HRA claims; (ii) refused at this stage to permit a wide re-cast of the case to add an intentional‑infliction tort claim; and (iii) made ancillary case-management directions requiring the Claimant to correspond only with defendants' solicitors (where counsel are on record) and maintained existing anonymity/reporting restrictions concerning the anonymous third party (D9).

The court allowed the Defendants' strike-out/summary-judgment applications in part. The Particulars of Claim were struck out in respect of the pleaded negligence claim (no arguable duty of care), the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 claims (time‑barred, abusive or incapable of amounting to harassment by publication), the Equality Act 2010 claims (not capable of coming within Part 3/public functions) and the Human Rights Act 1998 claims (no public-authority acts). Some data‑protection allegations were also struck out as abusive or inadequately pleaded. The remaining limited data‑protection complaint(s) were stayed under CPR 3.4(4) until the Claimant pays the on-account costs ordered in the earlier 2020 proceedings. The court certified certain heads as totally without merit (negligence, EQA, HRA). The MAC List transfer was appropriate and remains in place. The court declined to permit an open-ended amendment to add a Wilkinson/Rhodes claim for intentional infliction of psychiatric injury.