Peter Gaisiance v Chief Constable of British Transport Police & Ors

Statements of case must identify clearly the factual and legal basis of each claim, the defendant said to be liable, and the loss claimed. Vague, incoherent or unparticularised pleadings may disclose no reasonable grounds, constitute an abuse of process, and prevent the fair management and disposal of proceedings. A litigant in person remains subject to the court rules. Summary judgment may be granted where the pleaded claims have no real prospect of success and there is no compelling reason for trial. A claim may be certified as totally without merit only where it is truly bound to fail and no rational argument can be advanced. Indemnity costs may be justified by conduct outside the norm, including persistent non-compliance, wholly unparticularised claims and fanciful conspiracy allegations.

The claimant brought a £3.5 million claim arising from his arrest and prosecution after an incident on a train. The claim alleged, among other matters, wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, assault, excessive force, malicious prosecution, human-rights and data-protection breaches, misfeasance in public office, conspiracy and various remedies.

Following an earlier order requiring properly drafted particulars identifying the factual and legal basis of each claim and the losses claimed, the claimant filed particulars which did not comply. The first, second and third defendants applied for strike out and summary judgment. The claimant applied for summary judgment and trial directions. The issues were whether the pleaded claims disclosed viable causes of action, whether they had any real prospect of success, and whether the proceedings and applications were totally without merit.

1. Strike out and summary judgment. The defendants’ applications were granted. The claim form and particulars of claim were struck out under CPR rule 3.4(2), and summary judgment was entered for the defendants under CPR rule 24.3. The claimant’s application for summary judgment and trial directions was dismissed.
2. The pleadings were vague, incoherent and insufficiently particularised. They did not identify, for each defendant, the legal and factual basis of liability, the relevant unlawful acts, or the causal basis and calculation of loss. That prevented the defendants from responding fairly and prevented the court from managing and determining the proceedings justly and expeditiously. The approach in Towler v Wills [2010] EWHC 1209 (Comm) was applied.
3. The individual causes of action were not viable as pleaded. The claimant did not particularise wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, assault, excessive force, human-rights or data-protection breaches. The allegation of being falsely accused was not a recognisable cause of action. A claim for an injunction was a remedy, not a cause of action. The third defendant, a private company, was not a public authority for the purposes of section 6(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 and held no public office for a misfeasance claim.
4. The claimant had not shown that amendment could produce a compliant and viable claim. His status as a litigant in person did not excuse non-compliance with the rules, consistently with Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12.
5. The claim form, particulars and claimant’s application were certified totally without merit. Applying R (Grace) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 1091 and R (Wasif) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 82, the proceedings were bound to fail and no rational argument could be advanced. The claim was referred to a High Court judge to consider an extended or general civil restraint order.
6. The first and second defendants’ costs were assessed as claimed. The third defendant’s costs were assessed on the indemnity basis at £27,954. The claimant was ordered to pay the costs within 14 days unless otherwise agreed or ordered.