Akay v Newcastle University [2020] EWHC 1669 (QB) (25 June 2020)

Akay v Newcastle University [2020] EWHC 1669 (QB) (25 June 2020)

The appeal was dismissed because the personal injury claim was an abuse of process, as it arose from the same facts as claims previously struck out by the Employment Tribunal for abuse of process. There was no special reason to allow the claim to proceed, as the Claimant was aware of his psychological injury before the Employment Tribunal proceedings and deliberately chose not to pursue a personal injury claim at that time. The Compromise Agreement did not preclude the Defendant from raising abuse of process, and the judge applied the correct legal principles and a broad, merits-based judgment.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1669
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Professor Galip Akay; Defendant/respondent: Newcastle University
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court Decision Striking Out Claim as Abuse of Process
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Res Judicata, Personal Injury, Harassment, Breach of Contract, Employment Tribunal Procedure, Costs
Civil Procedure Employment Law Tort Law Abuse of Process Res Judicata Personal Injury Harassment Breach of Contract +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Professor Galip Akay

Claimant/appellant

Newcastle University

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court Decision Striking Out Claim as Abuse of Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the County Court personal injury claim was an abuse of process following strike out of related Employment Tribunal claims
  2. 2 Whether the Compromise Agreement precluded the Defendant from raising abuse of process or res judicata
  3. 3 Whether there was a 'special reason' to allow the personal injury claim to proceed despite earlier proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the personal injury claim was an abuse of process, as it arose from the same facts as claims previously struck out by the Employment Tribunal for abuse of process. There was no special reason to allow the claim to proceed, as the Claimant was aware of his psychological injury before the Employment Tribunal proceedings and deliberately chose not to pursue a personal injury claim at that time. The Compromise Agreement did not preclude the Defendant from raising abuse of process, and the judge applied the correct legal principles and a broad, merits-based judgment.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant's appeal dismissed
  • Claimant to pay Defendant's costs of the action and the strike-out application