Singh v Grief To Grace & Ors [2022] EWHC 2999 (KB) (01 December 2022)

Singh v Grief To Grace & Ors [2022] EWHC 2999 (KB) (01 December 2022)

The claimant's application for anonymity was refused as not strictly necessary to secure the administration of justice, given the use of a confidential schedule. The application to amend the particulars of claim was refused because the draft remained prolix, unclear, and non-compliant with Practice Directions, failed to specify the information or acts complained of, and most claims were time-barred. The claimant had ample opportunity to remedy defects but failed to do so. The claim was struck out as the defects obstructed the just disposal of proceedings.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 2999 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Kamala Devi Singh; First Defendant: Grief to Grace; Second Defendant: Dominic John Allain; Third Defendant: Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Southwark; Fourth to Fifteenth Defendants: Michael David Jones and others (Trustees of Salford Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust); Twenty Eighth Defendant: John Stanley Kenneth Arnold
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application to Amend Claim and for Anonymity Order; Judgment on Amendments and Strike Out
Outcome
Claim struck out; all applications refused
Legal Topics
Anonymity Orders, Amendment of Pleadings, Breach of Confidence, Misuse of Private Information, Data Protection, Limitation of Actions, Practice Directions, Vicarious Liability
Civil Procedure Media and Communications Law Data Protection Anonymity Orders Amendment of Pleadings Breach of Confidence Misuse of Private Information Limitation of Actions +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 25 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kamala Devi Singh

Claimant

Grief to Grace

First Defendant

Dominic John Allain

Second Defendant

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Southwark

Third Defendant

Michael David Jones and others (Trustees of Salford Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust)

Fourth to Fifteenth Defendants

John Stanley Kenneth Arnold

Twenty Eighth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application to Amend Claim and for Anonymity Order; Judgment on Amendments and Strike Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant should be granted an anonymity order under CPR 39.2
  2. 2 Whether permission should be granted to amend the particulars of claim to advance claims for breach of confidence, misuse of private information, and data protection breaches
  3. 3 Whether the proposed amendments are time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's application for anonymity was refused as not strictly necessary to secure the administration of justice, given the use of a confidential schedule. The application to amend the particulars of claim was refused because the draft remained prolix, unclear, and non-compliant with Practice Directions, failed to specify the information or acts complained of, and most claims were time-barred. The claimant had ample opportunity to remedy defects but failed to do so. The claim was struck out as the defects obstructed the just disposal of proceedings.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out; all applications refused

Orders

  • Refusal of anonymity order
  • Refusal of permission to amend particulars of claim