Baxendale- Walker v Middleton & Ors [2011] EWHC 998 (QB) (18 April 2011)

Baxendale- Walker v Middleton & Ors [2011] EWHC 998 (QB) (18 April 2011)

The claim discloses no real prospect of success on the pleaded torts of conspiracy to injure, unlawful means conspiracy, or misfeasance in public office. The allegations are unsupported by cogent evidence and amount to unsubstantiated assertion. The claim for malicious falsehood is time-barred. The disciplinary and regulatory actions taken against the claimant were based on evidence and proper process, not on conspiracy or malice. The claim is struck out and summary judgment is entered for the defendants.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 998 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Paul Baxendale-Walker; Defendant/applicant: David Middleton; Defendant/applicant: Martyn Duerden; Defendant/applicant: The Law Society of England and Wales (Solicitors Regulation Authority); Defendant/applicant: Aidan Langley; Defendant/applicant: Alex Thornton; Defendant/applicant: Steven Woodhouse; Defendant/applicant: Deloitte & Touche LLP; Defendant/applicant: Anthony Hyman Isaacs; Defendant/applicant: The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application to Strike Out and for Summary Judgment
Outcome
Claim struck out and summary judgment for defendants
Legal Topics
Conspiracy to Injure, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Misfeasance in Public Office, Malicious Falsehood, Vicarious Liability, Limitation, Summary Judgment, Striking Out, Professional Misconduct, Costs
Tort Professional Discipline Civil Procedure Conspiracy to Injure Unlawful Means Conspiracy Misfeasance in Public Office Malicious Falsehood Vicarious Liability +5 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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Baxendale-Walker

Claimant/respondent

David Middleton

Defendant/applicant

Martyn Duerden

Defendant/applicant

The Law Society of England and Wales (Solicitors Regulation Authority)

Defendant/applicant

Aidan Langley

Defendant/applicant

Alex Thornton

Defendant/applicant

Steven Woodhouse

Defendant/applicant

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Defendant/applicant

Anthony Hyman Isaacs

Defendant/applicant

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application to Strike Out and for Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim discloses a real prospect of success for conspiracy to injure, unlawful means conspiracy, and misfeasance in public office against the defendants
  2. 2 Whether the claim for malicious falsehood is time-barred
  3. 3 Whether the particulars of claim should be struck out and/or summary judgment entered for the defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The claim discloses no real prospect of success on the pleaded torts of conspiracy to injure, unlawful means conspiracy, or misfeasance in public office. The allegations are unsupported by cogent evidence and amount to unsubstantiated assertion. The claim for malicious falsehood is time-barred. The disciplinary and regulatory actions taken against the claimant were based on evidence and proper process, not on conspiracy or malice. The claim is struck out and summary judgment is entered for the defendants.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out and summary judgment for defendants

Orders

  • Replacement Particulars of Claim struck out
  • Summary judgment entered for all defendants (except Fifth Defendant, who was not served)