Adrian Daly v Independent Office for Police Conduct
[2023] EWHC 2236 (KB)
BCLI v Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis
27 November 2024
[2024] EWHC 3018 (KB)
High Court
A woman sued the police for mishandling her report of childhood sexual abuse. The judge threw out the case because she should have raised this issue in an earlier case she settled, and because she waited too long to sue and didn't explain who acted wrongly.
Key Facts
- •Claimant (BCLI) was raped and sexually assaulted as a child (1966-1976).
- •In 2011, BCLI reported the abuse to the police; the investigation was closed.
- •BCLI brought an HRA claim in 2023, which was withdrawn with a 'drop hands' settlement.
- •BCLI then issued a new claim for misfeasance in public office.
- •The defendant (Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis) sought to strike out the claim as an abuse of process (res judicata) and/or as being out of time.
- •BCLI counter-applied for an extension of time and to amend the pleadings.
Legal Principles
Res judicata/Abuse of Process
Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100; Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd [2014] AC 160; Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC; Aldi Stores Ltd v WSP Group plc [2007] EWCA Civ 1260; Warburton v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset [2023] EWCA Civ 209
Limitation Act 1980, sections 11, 14, 33
Limitation Act 1980
Misfeasance in Public Office
Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No. 3) [2003] 2 AC 1
Human Rights Act 1998, section 7
Human Rights Act 1998
CPR 38.6, CPR 44.15(b)
Civil Procedure Rules
Outcomes
Claim struck out.
The claim was an abuse of process (res judicata) because it could and should have been raised in the earlier HRA claim, which was settled with the understanding that all claims relating to the 2011 police investigation were concluded. Even if not an abuse of process, the claim was also out of time and deficiently pleaded.
Application for extension of time refused.
The claimant had sufficient knowledge in 2011 to bring a claim, and the subsequent events did not alter this. The prejudice to the defendant from the delay outweighed the prejudice to the claimant. The claim also had only a thin prospect of success.
Application to amend pleadings refused (except for a minor mathematical error).
The claimant's misfeasance claim was inadequately pleaded, failing to specify who acted in bad faith. This would be the third attempt to plead the claim.
Similar Cases
Kristina O'Connor, R (on the application of) v Police Misconduct Panel & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2892 (Admin)
Marzieh Ansari v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2006 (KB)
Damian Warburton v The Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary
[2023] EWCA Civ 209
C. CHRISTO & CO LIMITED v NICHOLAS CHRISTOFOROU & Anor.
[2023] EWHC 1094 (KB)