Dr Theodore Piepenbrock v Paul Michell & Ors

The claimant issued a Part 7 claim alleging defamation, malicious falsehood, harassment, negligence, breach of statutory duty and intentional infliction of psychiatric harm arising from a profile entry published on a barrister's chambers website (the "Website Profile Entry"). The judge applied the strike out and summary judgment tests in CPR Part 3.4(2) and Part 24.3 and concluded the particulars disclosed no reasonable grounds and, alternatively, that the claim had no real prospect of success.

The court found that the third to fifty-second defendants (members of Cloisters) were not publishers or joint authors of the profile and could not be vicariously liable; that the first defendant's alleged publications were time‑barred for defamation and malicious falsehood; that the particulars failed to plead lawful causes of action in harassment, negligence, breach of statutory duty, or intentional infliction of psychiatric harm; and that many allegations were precluded by prior judgments (cause/issue estoppel and abuse of process). CPR Parts, the Limitation Act 1980, the Defamation Acts and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 were applied.

As a result the claim was struck out, certified totally without merit, the claimant's application to lift a stay was dismissed and an Extended Civil Restraint Order was made restraining the claimant from issuing related claims in the High Court or County Court without permission for three years.

Background and parties:

• The claimant, an autistic academic, sued the first defendant (a practising barrister), the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), and 50 further members of Cloisters Chambers in respect of a profile entry on Cloisters' website and historic grievances and press articles. The profile entry summarised the barrister's involvement in the claimant's employment tribunal and linked to press coverage.

Nature of the proceedings and relief sought:

• The claimant sought damages for personal and psychiatric injury, loss and damage under causes of action including negligence, breach of statutory duty, intentional infliction, defamation (libel), malicious falsehood and harassment. Defendants applied to strike out or for summary judgment; the LSE also sought an extended civil restraint order.

Issues before the court:

• Whether the particulars disclosed reasonable grounds for the claims against the barrister defendants and the LSE (CPR 3.4(2)) or whether summary judgment ought be entered (CPR 24.3).
• Whether the members of Cloisters or the LSE could be liable for publication (including vicarious liability or as publishers).
• Whether defamation and malicious falsehood claims were time‑barred under the Limitation Act 1980 and whether the particulars met the required pleading thresholds.
• Whether harassment and other torts were adequately pleaded.
• Whether prior judgments and procedural history precluded re‑litigation by cause/issue estoppel or amounted to abuse of process.
• Whether an Extended Civil Restraint Order was appropriate given repeated, unsuccessful litigation by the claimant.

Court's reasoning and decisions:

• The court analysed the law on strike out and summary judgment (CPR Parts 3.4 and 24.3) and the law on publication liability, concluding that participation or authorisation of publication is required and a passive or instrumental role is insufficient. Evidence showed individual members of chambers each maintained their own profiles and Cloisters is not a separate legal entity, so the third to fifty‑second defendants were not publishers and could not be vicariously liable.
• The Website Profile Entry was published on 7 August 2021. Defamation and malicious falsehood causes of action were therefore time‑barred under the Limitation Act and the claimant had not applied to disapply limitation; pleaded particulars also failed to meet the serious harm requirement or plead malice and special damage adequately.
• The particulars did not plead the elements of harassment (no course of conduct on at least two occasions, nor adequate specification of communications), negligence or intentional infliction of psychiatric harm. Many allegations concerned historic events already litigated and decided against the claimant by prior High Court and Employment Tribunal decisions; the court held those matters were barred by cause of action estoppel, issue estoppel or constituted an abuse of process.
• Given the claimant's repeated, unsuccessful litigation on substantially the same factual matrix and his stated intention to continue, the court concluded an Extended Civil Restraint Order for three years was appropriate to prevent further totally without merit claims without prior permission.

Procedural outcome: the claim was struck out and certified totally without merit; the claimant's application to lift a stay was dismissed and certified totally without merit; an ECRO was imposed until 12 March 2027; consequential matters (including costs) were listed for further hearing.

This is a first instance judgment. The court struck out the claimant's particulars of claim under CPR Part 3.4(2) as disclosing no reasonable grounds and, alternatively, held there was no real prospect of success under CPR Part 24.3. The claim against the first and the Barrister Defendants and the LSE is dismissed for the reasons above (time bar for defamation/malicious falsehood, failure to plead harassment or other torts, and prior judgments precluding re-litigation). The claimant's application to lift the stay was dismissed and certified totally without merit. An Extended Civil Restraint Order was imposed for three years to prevent further totally without merit proceedings without judicial permission.