Dr Theodore Piepenbrock v Paul Michell & Ors

A claim may be struck out where the statement of case discloses no legally recognisable cause of action, is an abuse of process, or is incapable of being saved by amendment. A claim based on publication requires knowing and active involvement in, or authorisation of, the publication. Mere awareness or a passive instrumental role is insufficient.

Vicarious liability requires a qualifying relationship and a sufficient connection with the wrongdoing. Harassment requires a persistent and deliberate course of unreasonable and oppressive conduct, ordinarily involving conduct on at least two occasions. Earlier determinations may preclude relitigation through cause of action estoppel, issue estoppel or abuse of process. An extended civil restraint order may be made where a litigant persistently issues claims or applications that are totally without merit.

The claimant brought proceedings against a barrister, the London School of Economics and Political Science, and numerous members of the barrister’s chambers. He relied on alleged defamation, malicious falsehood, harassment, negligence, breach of statutory duty and intentional infliction of physical or psychiatric harm.

The claim principally concerned a profile entry on the chambers’ website and historic allegations concerning grievances made against the LSE. The defendants applied for strike-out and summary judgment. The claimant applied to lift an earlier stay. The LSE also sought an extended civil restraint order.

1. Strike-out and summary judgment. Under CPR 3.4(2), the court may strike out a statement of case which discloses no reasonable grounds or is an abuse of process. CPR 24.3 permits summary judgment where the claimant has no real prospect of success and there is no compelling reason for trial. The defects in the claim were substantive and could not be cured by amendment.
2. Publication and vicarious liability. Liability for publication requires knowing and active involvement in, or authorisation of, the publication. A passive instrumental role or mere awareness is insufficient. Vicarious liability requires both a relationship which makes one person liable for another’s acts and a sufficient connection between that relationship and the wrongdoing. The individual barrister defendants had not participated in publication and the chambers was not a separate legal person. The LSE had neither participated in publication nor established a qualifying relationship with the barrister.
3. Individual causes of action. The defamation and malicious-falsehood allegations were outside the applicable one-year limitation period. The pleaded website entry did not amount to a course of conduct capable of constituting harassment and did not allege conduct on at least two occasions. No statutory duty, recognisable negligence claim, or properly pleaded claim for intentional infliction of physical or psychiatric harm was identified.
4. Relitigation. The historic allegations against the LSE and individuals associated with it had already been determined in earlier High Court and Employment Tribunal proceedings, or should have been raised there. Cause of action estoppel, issue estoppel and abuse of process therefore precluded their pursuit in these proceedings.
5. Orders. The claim was struck out and certified as totally without merit. The application to lift the stay was dismissed and certified as totally without merit. An extended civil restraint order was made for three years, restraining further claims or applications in the High Court or County Court concerning or relating to the matters in these proceedings without permission.