Clarke v Arc Legal Assistance Ltd & Ors

Clarke v Arc Legal Assistance Ltd & Ors

The claim was incoherent, lacked reasonable grounds, failed to plead material facts and loss, was abusive, and any challenge to administrative decisions should have been brought by judicial review; therefore, the claim was struck out.

Parties
Claimant: Phyliss Clarke; First Defendant: ARC Legal Assistance Limited; Second Defendant: Bar Standards Board; Third Defendant: DAS Legal Expenses Insurance Company Limited; Fourth Defendant: The Financial Ombudsman Service Limited; Fifth Defendant: Legal Ombudsman; Sixth Defendant: Solicitors Regulation Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Strike Out Application and Summary Judgment
Outcome
Claim struck out
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Breach of Confidentiality, Fraud, Human Rights Act, Civil Procedure Rules, Abuse of Process, Summary Judgment
Contract Law Insurance Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Breach of Contract Breach of Confidentiality Fraud Human Rights Act +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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phyliss Clarke

Claimant

ARC Legal Assistance Limited

First Defendant

Bar Standards Board

Second Defendant

DAS Legal Expenses Insurance Company Limited

Third Defendant

The Financial Ombudsman Service Limited

Fourth Defendant

Legal Ombudsman

Fifth Defendant

Solicitors Regulation Authority

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Strike Out Application and Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim discloses reasonable grounds for bringing the claim
  2. 2 Whether the claim is an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether the claim should be struck out under CPR 3.4(2)

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was incoherent, lacked reasonable grounds, failed to plead material facts and loss, was abusive, and any challenge to administrative decisions should have been brought by judicial review; therefore, the claim was struck out.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out

Orders

  • Claim struck out against all defendants
  • Parties to agree terms of consequential order including costs