Candy v Holyoake & Ors (No 2) [2017] EWHC 2943 (QB) (22 November 2017)

Candy v Holyoake & Ors (No 2) [2017] EWHC 2943 (QB) (22 November 2017)

The Second Response did not comply with the court's order for further and better particulars, but striking out the claim would be disproportionate. The claim is flawed but not manifestly hopeless. An 'unless' order is appropriate, requiring the claimant to properly particularise the information alleged to be confidential or private and the basis for such protection. Permission to amend to add conspiracy claims and to expand the scope of the privacy/confidentiality claims in the vague and late form proposed is refused, but the claimant may re-apply with properly formulated amendments.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2943 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Nicholas Anthony Christopher Candy; First Defendant: Mark Alan Holyoake; Second Defendant: Emma Adanma Holyoake; Third Defendant: David Clive Wells; Fourth Defendant: William Alexander Charles Pym; Fifth Defendant: William Derrick Lovering
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Applications Prior to Trial
Outcome
Claim not struck out; 'unless' order made; permission to amend refused in current form; liberty to re-apply with proper particulars.
Legal Topics
Breach of Confidence, Misuse of Private Information, Data Protection, Civil Procedure—strike Out, Civil Procedure—amendment of Pleadings, Conspiracy
Civil Procedure Privacy Law Data Protection Tort Law Breach of Confidence Misuse of Private Information Civil Procedure—strike Out Civil Procedure—amendment of Pleadings +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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicholas Anthony Christopher Candy

Claimant

Mark Alan Holyoake

First Defendant

Emma Adanma Holyoake

Second Defendant

David Clive Wells

Third Defendant

William Alexander Charles Pym

Fourth Defendant

William Derrick Lovering

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Applications Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's Second Response complied with the court's order for further and better particulars under Part 18.
  2. 2 Whether the claim should be struck out for non-compliance and/or lack of particularity.
  3. 3 Whether permission should be granted to amend the Particulars of Claim to add claims in conspiracy and expand the scope of the privacy/confidentiality claims.

Ratio Decidendi

The Second Response did not comply with the court's order for further and better particulars, but striking out the claim would be disproportionate. The claim is flawed but not manifestly hopeless. An 'unless' order is appropriate, requiring the claimant to properly particularise the information alleged to be confidential or private and the basis for such protection. Permission to amend to add conspiracy claims and to expand the scope of the privacy/confidentiality claims in the vague and late form proposed is refused, but the claimant may re-apply with properly formulated amendments.

Court Disposition

Claim not struck out; 'unless' order made; permission to amend refused in current form; liberty to re-apply with proper particulars.

Orders

  • Unless the claimant files and serves a compliant response and amended pleadings by the specified date, the claim will be struck out.
  • Permission to amend the Particulars of Claim in the form proposed is refused, but liberty to apply with properly formulated amendments is granted.