Jackson Yamba v BW Legal Services Limited

At the pleading stage, the facts relied on are decisive. A claimant need not attach an express legal label if the pleaded facts disclose harassment at common law, but a bare label cannot cure insufficient facts. When granting permission to appeal against a strike-out decision, the court may direct the claimant to replead the existing case before the appeal is heard, provided the order does not determine the merits or foreclose arguments. Repleading does not necessarily convert an appeal by way of review into a rehearing. Appellate courts may permit new points to be taken on appeal.

The claimant brought proceedings alleging malicious prosecution in civil proceedings, abuse of process and harassment against his former employer. The County Court at Leeds struck out the whole claim. On an oral application for permission to appeal, Dias J granted permission in relation to harassment only and directed the claimant to amend the claim form and replace his Particulars of Claim. The order was reported at [2025] EWHC 1611 (KB).

The defendant appealed the case-management directions, arguing that they were procedurally irregular, transformed the appeal into a rehearing and permitted a new claim to be advanced through a Reply. The central issues were whether the amended pleading improperly foreclosed arguments on the strike-out appeal and whether the existing pleaded facts could support a claim of common-law harassment.

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal.

1. Pleading common-law harassment. Under CPR r 16.4(1)(a), what must be pleaded is a concise statement of the facts relied on. If those facts amount to harassment at common law, the claimant may rely on that case even if the Particulars of Claim do not expressly identify the cause of action. Conversely, an express reference to common-law harassment cannot save facts which do not disclose such a claim.
2. Effect of the case-management order. The directions had to be read objectively and in the context of the permission to appeal. They permitted the claimant to replead the existing harassment case clearly; they did not authorise an entirely novel case, determine the merits or insulate the claim from the strike-out test. The claimant still had to show that the allegations had a real prospect of success.
3. Review and rehearing. The fact that the Particulars of Claim before the appellate judge were in a different form did not turn the appeal into a rehearing. The substance remained the same, and appellate courts may permit new points to be taken on appeal, as illustrated by Singh v Dass [2019] EWCA Civ 360. If the repleaded case lacked sufficient merit, the strike-out would stand.
4. Procedural guidance. Although unnecessary to the decision, the court observed that inviting a draft amended pleading may be preferable in future, as it could avoid disputes about the scope of an amendment direction.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed BW Legal Services Limited’s appeal against the case-management directions concerning the harassment strike-out appeal: [2025] EWCA Civ 1299.
• High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division: Dias J granted permission to appeal on harassment and costs only, and directed repleading: [2025] EWHC 1611 (KB).
• County Court at Leeds: District Judge Buck struck out the whole claim, including the harassment claim.