Gijsbert Lucas Van Buuren v The Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire Constabulary & Ors

A claim in misfeasance in public office seeking damages for personal injury is subject to the three-year limitation period in section 11 of the Limitation Act 1980. A continuing loss does not itself make the tort continuing. The court may nevertheless consider an extension under section 33 where the evidence, including alleged concealment and the claimant’s psychological condition, requires it.

Allegations of misfeasance must identify the public powers exercised, the individuals involved, the acts relied upon, the relevant state of mind and the resulting damage. Bare assertions of conspiracy, dishonesty or bad faith are insufficient. A defective pleading may be struck out in part where a reasonably arguable core claim can be separated and preserved.

The claimant alleged that police officers falsified the investigation of a 2013 cycling collision, concealed an eyewitness account, and that the defendant police forces and the Independent Office for Police Conduct later participated in related misconduct. He brought a claim in misfeasance in public office for substantial damages, including personal injury and psychiatric injury.

The defendants applied under CPR 3.4 to strike out the claim. The fourth defendant also sought summary judgment under CPR 24.2. The claimant sought strike-out and summary judgment against the defendants. The issues included limitation, pleading sufficiency, alleged concealment, the requirements of misfeasance, and whether any part of the claim could proceed.

1. Limitation. The claim was principally one for damages for personal injury. Following A v Hoare, the three-year period under section 11 of the Limitation Act 1980 applied, notwithstanding that the pleaded tort was intentional misfeasance rather than negligence. There was no residual non-personal-injury claim attracting the six-year period under section 2.
2. The alleged continuing consequences of earlier conduct did not constitute a continuing tort. The approach in Escott v Tunbridge Wells Borough Council was applicable: continuing loss resulting from an earlier act does not extend the limitation period.
3. For the purposes of the applications, the claimant’s date of knowledge in relation to D1 was accepted as 10 January 2017, when he obtained the eyewitness interview. The issue of deliberate concealment under section 32 remained unsuitable for final determination on the applications. D4 could not rely on limitation because no limitation defence had been pleaded, applying the procedural principle in Richards v McKeown & another. D1–D3 could rely on limitation, subject to the discretionary extension under section 33.
4. Misfeasance and pleading. The tort requires action by a public officer in the exercise of public power or duty, malice, and damage. Malice may be targeted or untargeted. The constituent elements must be expressly and sufficiently particularised. Serious allegations of bad faith require specific and detailed factual support, as explained in Three Rivers District Council v Governor and Company of The Bank of England and Carter v Chief Constable of Cumbria Police.
5. The claims against D2, D3 and D4 disclosed no reasonable grounds and failed to comply with the court’s order requiring a concise statement of facts. The pleaded allegations did not identify adequate facts establishing knowledge, malice, unlawful acts or causation. Those claims were struck out, and the claimant’s applications against those defendants were dismissed.
6. The claim against D1 was different. The eyewitness material and handwriting comparison raised a genuine issue concerning possible fabrication of a witness statement and suppression of evidence. The broader allegations, including attempted murder and a subsequent conspiracy, were unsustainable, but the arguable core claim could be preserved. The pleading was therefore struck out except to the extent that it advanced that limited claim.
7. The proceedings against D1 were to continue on liability only, with a preliminary trial issue concerning whether KM deliberately falsified the collision record or investigation to conceal a collision, and whether the limitation period should be extended under section 33. No certification that the claim was totally without merit was made.

Not an appeal. The judgment determined interlocutory strike-out and summary-judgment applications in the High Court.