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 is based on unsubstantiated assertions and lacks cogent evidence of conspiracy, targeted malice, or improper motive. The actions of the defendants were legitimate regulatory and disciplinary measures. The claimant does not have a real prospect of success. The claim for malicious falsehood is time-barred. The court grants the applications to strike out the claim and for summary judgment.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 998
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 for Strike Out and Summary Judgment
Outcome
Claim struck out; summary judgment granted for defendants
Legal Topics
Conspiracy to Injure, Misfeasance in Public Office, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Vicarious Liability, Malicious Falsehood, Limitation, Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Conflict of Interest, Professional Misconduct
Tort Professional Discipline Civil Procedure Conspiracy to Injure Misfeasance in Public Office Unlawful Means Conspiracy Vicarious Liability Malicious Falsehood +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 11 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 for Strike Out and Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim discloses a real prospect of success against the defendants for conspiracy to injure, unlawful means conspiracy, and misfeasance in public office
  2. 2 Whether the claim should be struck out or summary judgment granted
  3. 3 Whether the defendants acted with targeted malice or improper motive in regulatory and disciplinary proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is based on unsubstantiated assertions and lacks cogent evidence of conspiracy, targeted malice, or improper motive. The actions of the defendants were legitimate regulatory and disciplinary measures. The claimant does not have a real prospect of success. The claim for malicious falsehood is time-barred. The court grants the applications to strike out the claim and for summary judgment.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out; summary judgment granted for defendants

Orders

  • Replacement Particulars of Claim struck out
  • Summary judgment entered for defendants