Hughes v His Majesty's Revenue and Customs & Anor [2024] EWHC 1765 (KB) (09 July 2024)

Hughes v His Majesty's Revenue and Customs & Anor [2024] EWHC 1765 (KB) (09 July 2024)

The claim for malicious prosecution fails because only the CPS, not HMRC, was the prosecutor, and there was reasonable and probable cause for prosecution at all material times. The misfeasance in public office claim fails as there is no real prospect of establishing the requisite malice or recklessness. The assignments of company claims to the claimant are unenforceable as contrary to public policy.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 1765 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Mr Richard Ian Hughes; First Defendant: His Majesty's Revenue and Customs; Second Defendant: The Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil (tort) / Summary Judgment/strike Out Application
Outcome
Claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Malicious Prosecution, Misfeasance in Public Office, Assignment of Claims, Disclosure Obligations, Reasonable and Probable Cause
Tort Law Criminal Procedure Public Law Malicious Prosecution Misfeasance in Public Office Assignment of Claims Disclosure Obligations Reasonable and Probable Cause

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Richard Ian Hughes

Claimant

His Majesty's Revenue and Customs

First Defendant

The Crown Prosecution Service

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (tort) / Summary Judgment/strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the malicious prosecution claim against HMRC and CPS has a real prospect of success
  2. 2 Whether the misfeasance in public office claim against HMRC and CPS has a real prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the assignments of company claims to the claimant are valid and enforceable

Ratio Decidendi

The claim for malicious prosecution fails because only the CPS, not HMRC, was the prosecutor, and there was reasonable and probable cause for prosecution at all material times. The misfeasance in public office claim fails as there is no real prospect of establishing the requisite malice or recklessness. The assignments of company claims to the claimant are unenforceable as contrary to public policy.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed

Orders

  • Summary judgment granted to both defendants on all claims
  • Strike-out applications allowed as alternative