Sharon Elizabeth Brown v The Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Constabulary & Ors

Claims may be struck out where the pleaded case discloses no reasonable grounds, has no real prospect of success, or would serve no useful purpose at trial. A negligence claim based on failures to investigate or protect against third-party harm ordinarily discloses no duty of care absent an assumption of responsibility or other special circumstance. Misfeasance in public office requires properly particularised bad faith; an error of judgment is insufficient. Human-rights, data-protection and discrimination claims require coherent particulars and evidential foundations. A claim may also be an abuse of process where matters could and should have been raised in earlier proceedings, assessed by a broad merits-based evaluation.

The claimant brought a £350,000 claim against the Chief Constable, the Police and Crime Commissioner for Hertfordshire and Catch22 Charity Limited. She alleged misfeasance in public office, negligence, breaches of statutory duty and data-protection law, breaches of the Human Rights Act 1998, and disability discrimination arising from police investigations, safeguarding referrals, victim-support arrangements and related complaints.

Each defendant applied under CPR r.3.4 for strike-out and under CPR r.24.3 for summary judgment. The court considered whether the pleadings disclosed reasonable grounds, whether any claim had a real prospect of success, whether there was a compelling reason for trial, and whether claims against the second and third defendants were abusive because they could and should have been brought in earlier proceedings.

1. Disposition. The claims against all three defendants were struck out under CPR r.3.4(2)(a). Summary judgment was alternatively entered under CPR r.24.3. The claims were recorded as totally without merit, and the court held that amendment or disclosure would not cure the fundamental defects.
2. Summary judgment. The claimant did not have to prove that she would win. The defendants had to show no real prospect of success and no compelling reason for trial. The court applied the principles in Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom Ltd, including the prohibition on a mini-trial and the need to consider evidence reasonably expected at trial. A short legal issue may nevertheless be decided summarily where the evidence and argument are sufficient.
3. Misfeasance and negligence. The pleaded facts did not realistically establish bad faith, loss or damage. Conduct equally consistent with mistake or error of judgment could not establish misfeasance. The negligence claims concerned omissions and failures to confer a benefit or protect against harm caused by a third party. Applying Woodcock v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police, Tindall v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police, Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police and Poole BC v GN, no duty of care or assumption of responsibility was shown. The same conclusion applied to Catch22.
4. Other causes of action. The pleaded Article 3 allegations lacked particulars and the historic claim was time barred. The Article 6 claim failed because there was no evidence that the police interfered with civil proceedings, and a failure to provide a Victim’s Right to Review did not create a damages claim. The Article 8 safeguarding referral was justified on the information available. The Article 1 of Protocol 1 allegation lacked particulars and had no real prospect of success. The UK GDPR did not apply to the relevant law-enforcement processing under article 2(2)(b), while the sensitive processing was justified under Data Protection Act 2018, s.35(5) and Schedule 8, s.4.
5. Equality and abuse of process. The discrimination, reasonable-adjustment and harassment allegations lacked particulars and evidential support. The claims against the second and third defendants were also an abuse of process under the Henderson v Henderson principle, applying a broad, merits-based assessment of all the circumstances.