Marzieh Ansari v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis & Ors

An application to strike out under CPR rule 3.4 involves two stages: whether a specified ground is established, and whether strike-out should be ordered in the exercise of discretion. The court must focus on the pleaded case for rule 3.4(2)(a), ordinarily assuming pleaded facts to be true. Even where pleading requirements have been breached, strike-out is not automatic. Proportionality and the overriding objective may require an opportunity to cure defects where a legally recognisable claim is apparent and can properly be pleaded. A litigant in person is not generally held to a lower standard of compliance. On appeal, the court reviews the decision and intervenes for an error of principle or material failure to consider relevant factors.

The claimant appealed an order of Senior Master Cook dated 28 October 2022. The Master struck out most of her claims against the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Chief Constable of Sussex Police under CPR rule 3.4(2)(a) and (c), while allowing her 14 days to plead a wrongful-arrest claim against the first defendant concerning 12 May 2022.

By the hearing of the appeal, the claim against the Crown Prosecution Service had settled and the claimant pursued a reduced group of claims against the police defendants. The central questions were whether the statements of case disclosed reasonable grounds, whether procedural defects justified strike-out rather than an opportunity to amend, and whether the claimant could introduce a late challenge concerning the 12 May 2022 arrest.

1. Appeal partly allowed. The claimant was permitted to re-plead claims concerning alleged unreasonable force during arrests, the alleged removal of clothing, and the prolonged retention of personal devices. The claims concerning alleged failures to investigate, modern-slavery duties, and related ECHR or ECAT claims were not revived.
2. CPR rule 3.4 requires a two-stage analysis: whether one of the statutory grounds is established, followed by whether strike-out should be ordered in the court’s discretion. For rule 3.4(2)(a), the court ordinarily considers the pleaded case rather than evidence, assumes pleaded facts to be true unless contradictory or obviously wrong, and asks whether the claim is hopeless or bound to fail.
3. The claimant’s status as a litigant in person did not reduce the ordinary requirement to comply with the CPR. The statements of case were materially deficient under CPR Part 16 because they were unclear, excessive, failed to identify the causes of action and remedies adequately, and lacked a schedule of loss and supporting medical report where personal injury was alleged.
4. Nevertheless, strike-out for pleading defects is discretionary and must be proportionate. The assault allegations concerning the March 2020 arrest, the September 2021 and May 2022 arrests, the alleged removal of clothing, and device retention were sufficiently apparent on the pleaded materials to justify an opportunity to formulate compliant claims. Their prospects were uncertain, but they were not to be determined on evidence at the strike-out stage.
5. The proposed negligence claims based on failures to investigate did not disclose reasonable grounds. Common-law liability for negligent omissions by the police arises only in limited circumstances, and no applicable duty was pleaded. The Article 3 claim also lacked a pleaded basis and the facts did not approach the egregious operational failures required in a serious-investigation case.
6. The late application to revive wrongful-arrest claims was refused. The claimant had expressly abandoned those claims during the appeal, the proposed arguments could have been raised earlier, and allowing them would prejudice the defendants and undermine the overriding objective. The first-instance order remained effective in relation to those claims.
7. The revised pleading was to include particulars of personal injury, any intended medical report and a schedule of loss. The judge provisionally indicated transfer to the County Court and invited submissions on an unless order, a stay, costs and other consequential directions.

• High Court (King’s Bench Division): The appeal from the order of Senior Master Cook dated 28 October 2022 was allowed in part. The claimant was given an opportunity to re-plead specified claims, while the late application concerning wrongful arrest was refused.
• Permission stage: Permission to appeal was refused on paper by Sir Stephen Stewart on 23 June 2023 but granted by Freedman J on 13 October 2023.