Theodore Piepenbrock v London School of Economics and Political Science & Ors.

Theodore Piepenbrock v London School of Economics and Political Science & Ors.

The pleaded claims in negligence, harassment, discrimination, and human rights law are bound to fail, are totally without merit, and/or are an abuse of process. No duty of care arises in the pleaded circumstances; the claims are attempts to circumvent defamation limitation and are precluded by prior litigation. The data protection claims are inadequately pleaded and, to the extent not struck out, are stayed pending payment of previous costs. The claimant is not permitted to amend to add a claim for intentional infliction of psychiatric injury. The case remains in the MAC List. Ancillary orders restricting direct contact with represented parties are justified.

Parties
Claimant: Dr Theodore Piepenbrock; First Defendant: London School of Economics and Political Science; Second Defendant: Nemat Shafik; Third Defendant: Craig Calhoun; Fourth Defendant: Susan Liautaud; Fifth Defendant: Alan Elias; Sixth Defendant: Joanne Hay; Seventh Defendant: Saul Estrin; Eighth Defendant: Gwyn Bevan; Ninth Defendant: HPN; Tenth Defendant: Associated Newspapers Limited; Eleventh Defendant: Jonathan Harmsworth; Twelfth Defendant: Geordie Greig; Thirteenth Defendant: Tobyn Andreae; Fourteenth Defendant: Antonia Hoyle; Fifteenth Defendant: Mark Duell
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil (high Court, King's Bench Division, Media & Communications List) / Strike Out and Summary Judgment Applications; Ruling on Transfer and Ancillary Orders
Outcome
Claims in negligence, harassment, discrimination, and human rights law struck out and dismissed as bound to fail or abusive; data protection claims (if any) stayed pending payment of previous costs; permission to amend to add intentional infliction of psychiatric injury refused; ancillary orders granted; case...
Legal Topics
Negligence, Harassment, Defamation, Discrimination (sex, Disability), Human Rights, Data Protection (sars), Vicarious Liability, Abuse of Process, Issue Estoppel
Tort Employment Law Media Law Equality and Discrimination Law Data Protection Negligence Harassment Defamation +6 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 1 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Theodore Piepenbrock

Claimant

London School of Economics and Political Science

First Defendant

Nemat Shafik

Second Defendant

Craig Calhoun

Third Defendant

Susan Liautaud

Fourth Defendant

Alan Elias

Fifth Defendant

Joanne Hay

Sixth Defendant

Saul Estrin

Seventh Defendant

Gwyn Bevan

Eighth Defendant

HPN

Ninth Defendant

Associated Newspapers Limited

Tenth Defendant

Jonathan Harmsworth

Eleventh Defendant

Geordie Greig

Twelfth Defendant

Tobyn Andreae

Thirteenth Defendant

Antonia Hoyle

Fourteenth Defendant

Mark Duell

Fifteenth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (high Court, King's Bench Division, Media & Communications List) / Strike Out and Summary Judgment Applications; Ruling on Transfer and Ancillary Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pleaded claims in negligence, harassment, discrimination, human rights, and data protection law disclose a reasonable cause of action or are bound to fail
  2. 2 Whether the claims are an abuse of process or precluded by issue estoppel
  3. 3 Whether the claims should be struck out or stayed under CPR 3.4 and/or summary judgment granted

Ratio Decidendi

The pleaded claims in negligence, harassment, discrimination, and human rights law are bound to fail, are totally without merit, and/or are an abuse of process. No duty of care arises in the pleaded circumstances; the claims are attempts to circumvent defamation limitation and are precluded by prior litigation. The data protection claims are inadequately pleaded and, to the extent not struck out, are stayed pending payment of previous costs. The claimant is not permitted to amend to add a claim for intentional infliction of psychiatric injury. The case remains in the MAC List. Ancillary orders restricting direct contact with represented parties are justified.

Court Disposition

Claims in negligence, harassment, discrimination, and human rights law struck out and dismissed as bound to fail or abusive; data protection claims (if any) stayed pending payment of previous costs; permission to amend to add intentional infliction of psychiatric injury refused; ancillary orders granted; case...

Orders

  • Striking out of claims in negligence, harassment, discrimination, and human rights law against LSE and ANL Defendants
  • Dismissal of those claims with certification as totally without merit