Candy v Holyoake & Ors (No 2)

Candy v Holyoake & Ors (No 2)

The Second Response did not comply with the court's order for further and better particulars and was evasive and unclear, but striking out the claim would be disproportionate. The claimant is given a final opportunity to amend and clarify his case by way of an unless order. The proposed amendments to expand the privacy/confidence claims and to add conspiracy claims are refused as too vague, but may be renewed if properly formulated.

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 Application (strike Out, Amendment, Unless Order)
Outcome
Second Response struck out; unless order granted; permission to amend refused in current form; permission to re-apply for properly formulated amendments; costs to be determined.
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 14 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 Application (strike Out, Amendment, Unless Order)

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

The Second Response did not comply with the court's order for further and better particulars and was evasive and unclear, but striking out the claim would be disproportionate. The claimant is given a final opportunity to amend and clarify his case by way of an unless order. The proposed amendments to expand the privacy/confidence claims and to add conspiracy claims are refused as too vague, but may be renewed if properly formulated.

Court Disposition

Second Response struck out; unless order granted; permission to amend refused in current form; permission to re-apply for properly formulated amendments; costs to be determined.

Orders

  • The Second Response is struck out.
  • The claimant must within 14 days prepare and serve draft amended or re-amended statements of case compliant with the order of 2 March 2017 and this judgment and file an application for permission to amend.