Rudall v The Crown Prosecution Service & Anor [2016] EWHC 2884 (QB) (14 November 2016)

Rudall v The Crown Prosecution Service & Anor [2016] EWHC 2884 (QB) (14 November 2016)

Claims relating to the 2002 search warrant and 2004-2005 prosecution are statute-barred and must be struck out or summarily dismissed. The claim for malicious prosecution in relation to the 2010-2013 prosecution is arguable and should proceed to trial, as is the claim for conspiracy to injure by unlawful means in that context. Claims for misfeasance in public office and under s.6 Human Rights Act may proceed only in so far as they relate to conduct after 25 April 2008.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 2884
Parties
Claimant: Phillip Rudall; First Defendant: The Crown Prosecution Service; Second Defendant: The Chief Constable of South Wales Police
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application for Summary Judgment And/or Strike Out; Application to Amend Pleadings
Outcome
Partially allowed; summary judgment/strike out granted in part; permission to amend granted in part
Legal Topics
Malicious Prosecution, Misfeasance in Public Office, Human Rights Act S.6, Limitation of Actions, Conspiracy to Injure, Abuse of Process, Search Warrants, Legal Professional Privilege
Tort Law Criminal Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Malicious Prosecution Misfeasance in Public Office Human Rights Act S.6 Limitation of Actions +4 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phillip Rudall

Claimant

The Crown Prosecution Service

First Defendant

The Chief Constable of South Wales Police

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application for Summary Judgment And/or Strike Out; Application to Amend Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claims relating to the 2002 search warrant and 2004-2005 prosecution are statute-barred
  2. 2 Whether the claimant has an arguable case for malicious prosecution in relation to the 2010-2013 prosecution
  3. 3 Whether claims for misfeasance in public office and under s.6 Human Rights Act can proceed for post-2008 conduct

Ratio Decidendi

Claims relating to the 2002 search warrant and 2004-2005 prosecution are statute-barred and must be struck out or summarily dismissed. The claim for malicious prosecution in relation to the 2010-2013 prosecution is arguable and should proceed to trial, as is the claim for conspiracy to injure by unlawful means in that context. Claims for misfeasance in public office and under s.6 Human Rights Act may proceed only in so far as they relate to conduct after 25 April 2008.

Court Disposition

Partially allowed; summary judgment/strike out granted in part; permission to amend granted in part

Orders

  • Claims relating to the 2002 search warrant and 2004-2005 prosecution struck out or summary judgment granted for defendants
  • Claim for malicious prosecution in relation to the 2010-2013 prosecution to proceed to trial