Osagie v Serco Ltd & Ors [2019] EWHC 1803 (QB) (11 July 2019)

Osagie v Serco Ltd & Ors [2019] EWHC 1803 (QB) (11 July 2019)

The claimant's proposed amended particulars of claim were fundamentally defective, failed to comply with procedural requirements, and were subject to absolute or qualified privilege defences or otherwise amounted to an abuse of process; none of the amendments had a real prospect of success and the claim was totally without merit, warranting refusal of permission to amend and striking out of the claim.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 1803 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Mr Jeffrey Osagie; First Defendant: Serco Limited; Second Defendant: Martin James; Third Defendant: Carl Crysell; Fourth Defendant: Lynn Chadbone; Fifth Defendant: Guisepina Mana; Sixth Defendant: Jon McHale
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application to Amend Particulars of Claim and Strike Out/summary Judgment
Outcome
Claim struck out; permission to amend refused; costs order varied by consent
Legal Topics
Defamation, Malicious Falsehood, Negligence, Human Rights Act 1998, Qualified Privilege, Absolute Privilege, Employment Tribunal Procedure
Tort Employment Human Rights Defamation Malicious Falsehood Negligence Human Rights Act 1998 Qualified Privilege +2 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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Jeffrey Osagie

Claimant

Serco Limited

First Defendant

Martin James

Second Defendant

Carl Crysell

Third Defendant

Lynn Chadbone

Fourth Defendant

Guisepina Mana

Fifth Defendant

Jon McHale

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application to Amend Particulars of Claim and Strike Out/summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's amended particulars of claim disclose any reasonable cause of action in defamation, malicious falsehood, negligence, or under the Human Rights Act 1998
  2. 2 Whether the claims are an abuse of process or covered by absolute or qualified privilege
  3. 3 Whether permission to amend should be granted or the claim should be struck out

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's proposed amended particulars of claim were fundamentally defective, failed to comply with procedural requirements, and were subject to absolute or qualified privilege defences or otherwise amounted to an abuse of process; none of the amendments had a real prospect of success and the claim was totally without merit, warranting refusal of permission to amend and striking out of the claim.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out; permission to amend refused; costs order varied by consent

Orders

  • Claimant's application to amend particulars of claim refused
  • Defendants' application to strike out claim granted