Kamala Devi Singh v Grief to Grace & Ors.

Kamala Devi Singh v Grief to Grace & Ors.

The claimant's application for anonymity was refused as it was not strictly necessary to secure the proper administration of justice, given the use of a confidential schedule. Permission to amend the particulars of claim was refused because the pleadings remained prolix, unclear, and non-compliant with Practice Directions, and many claims were time-barred. The defects obstructed the just disposal of proceedings, justifying striking out the claim.

Parties
Claimant: Kamala Devi Singh; 1st Defendant: Grief to Grace; 2nd Defendant: Dominic John Allain; 3rd Defendant: Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Southwark; 4th to 15th Defendants: Michael David Jones and others (Trustees of Salford Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust); 28th Defendant: John Stanley Kenneth Arnold
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Application to Amend Claim and for Anonymity Order
Outcome
Claim struck out; application for anonymity and permission to amend refused.
Legal Topics
Anonymity Orders, Amendment of Pleadings, Breach of Confidence, Misuse of Private Information, Data Protection, Limitation of Actions, Open Justice
Civil Procedure Tort Data Protection Anonymity Orders Amendment of Pleadings Breach of Confidence Misuse of Private Information Limitation of Actions +1 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 4 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kamala Devi Singh

Claimant

Grief to Grace

1st Defendant

Dominic John Allain

2nd Defendant

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Southwark

3rd Defendant

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

4th to 15th Defendants

John Stanley Kenneth Arnold

28th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Application to Amend Claim and for Anonymity Order

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 limitation rules

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's application for anonymity was refused as it was not strictly necessary to secure the proper administration of justice, given the use of a confidential schedule. Permission to amend the particulars of claim was refused because the pleadings remained prolix, unclear, and non-compliant with Practice Directions, and many claims were time-barred. The defects obstructed the just disposal of proceedings, justifying striking out the claim.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out; application for anonymity and permission to amend refused.

Orders

  • Application for anonymity order refused
  • Application for permission to amend claim refused