Richard Ian Hughes v HMRC & Anor

Richard Ian Hughes v HMRC & Anor

The Claimant's claims for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office have no real prospect of success because only the CPS was the prosecutor, there was reasonable and probable cause for prosecution, and there is no evidence of malice or bad faith. The assignments from ZCL and ZRL to the Claimant are void and unenforceable as they amount to maintenance and champerty, with the Claimant lacking a genuine commercial interest at the time of assignment.

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
07 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil / Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment granted for Defendants; claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Malicious Prosecution, Misfeasance in Public Office, Assignment of Claims, Disclosure Obligations, Maintenance and Champerty
Tort Public Law Criminal Procedure Malicious Prosecution Misfeasance in Public Office Assignment of Claims Disclosure Obligations Maintenance and Champerty

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
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 / Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant's claims for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office have no real prospect of success because only the CPS was the prosecutor, there was reasonable and probable cause for prosecution, and there is no evidence of malice or bad faith. The assignments from ZCL and ZRL to the Claimant are void and unenforceable as they amount to maintenance and champerty, with the Claimant lacking a genuine commercial interest at the time of assignment.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted for Defendants; claims dismissed

Orders

  • The claims in malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office are dismissed against both Defendants.
  • The assignments from ZCL and ZRL to the Claimant are declared void and unenforceable.