Archibald & Ors v East Sussex County Council [2026] EWHC 732 (KB) (31 March 2026)

Archibald & Ors v East Sussex County Council [2026] EWHC 732 (KB) (31 March 2026)

The appeal was dismissed because the claims for damages under Article 8 ECHR and for misfeasance in public office arose from the same events as the judicial review claim. The claimants could and should have brought all claims in the earlier proceedings. Pursuing them now constituted an abuse of process under the rule in Henderson v Henderson. The judge correctly applied the relevant legal principles and did not err in refusing the amendments or in striking out the claim.

Citation
[2026] EWHC 732 (KB)
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Heather Archibald; Appellant/claimant: Simon Archibald; Appellant/claimant: Rudi Archibald; Appellant/claimant: Seth Archibald; Appellant/claimant: Robert Archibald; Respondent/defendant: East Sussex County Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Appeal (from County Court to High Court, King's Bench Division) / Judgment on Appeal Against Strike Out and Refusal to Amend Claim
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Henderson V Henderson Doctrine, Article 8 ECHR, Misfeasance in Public Office, Judicial Review, Child Protection, Vicarious Liability
Civil Procedure Public Law Human Rights Tort Abuse of Process Henderson V Henderson Doctrine Article 8 ECHR Misfeasance in Public Office +3 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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Heather Archibald

Appellant/claimant

Simon Archibald

Appellant/claimant

Rudi Archibald

Appellant/claimant

Seth Archibald

Appellant/claimant

Robert Archibald

Appellant/claimant

East Sussex County Council

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (from County Court to High Court, King's Bench Division) / Judgment on Appeal Against Strike Out and Refusal to Amend Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second county court claim was an abuse of process under the rule in Henderson v Henderson
  2. 2 Whether the claimants should have brought their damages claims in the earlier judicial review proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the proposed amendments to add claims for misfeasance in public office and to join the Governing Body of West Rise Junior School were arguable or an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the claims for damages under Article 8 ECHR and for misfeasance in public office arose from the same events as the judicial review claim. The claimants could and should have brought all claims in the earlier proceedings. Pursuing them now constituted an abuse of process under the rule in Henderson v Henderson. The judge correctly applied the relevant legal principles and did not err in refusing the amendments or in striking out the claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Strike out of claim form and particulars of claim confirmed as abuse of process
  • Refusal of applications to amend claim form and particulars of claim upheld