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

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

The personal injury claim was an abuse of process because it arose from the same facts as claims previously struck out in the Employment Tribunal for abuse of process, and there was no special reason to permit the claim to proceed. The Compromise Agreement did not preclude the Defendant from raising abuse of process, and the Claimant was aware of his psychological injury at the relevant time. The judge correctly applied the broad, merits-based judgment required by law.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1669 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Professor Galip Akay; Defendant/respondent: Newcastle University
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to High Court (queen's Bench Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Res Judicata, Personal Injury, Harassment, Breach of Contract, Employment Tribunal Procedure, Costs Orders
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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Professor Galip Akay

Claimant/appellant

Newcastle University

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to High Court (queen's Bench Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the personal injury claim is an abuse of process following strike-out of related claims in the Employment Tribunal
  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 permit the personal injury claim to proceed despite earlier proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The personal injury claim was an abuse of process because it arose from the same facts as claims previously struck out in the Employment Tribunal for abuse of process, and there was no special reason to permit the claim to proceed. The Compromise Agreement did not preclude the Defendant from raising abuse of process, and the Claimant was aware of his psychological injury at the relevant time. The judge correctly applied the broad, merits-based judgment required by law.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claim struck out as abuse of process
  • Claimant to pay Defendant's costs of the action and the strike-out application