Boyce v Department of Work And Pensions & Anor [2019] EWHC 3963 (QB) (02 October 2019)

Boyce v Department of Work And Pensions & Anor [2019] EWHC 3963 (QB) (02 October 2019)

The claim is struck out as an abuse of process because it attempts to relitigate issues already determined or which should have been raised in previous proceedings. There is no material legal distinction between the current and prior claims, and the claims have received judicial consideration. Privity exists between the Secretary of State and the DWP. The claimant's submissions lack merit.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 3963
Parties
Claimant/respondent: David Boyce; Defendant/applicant: Department of Work and Pensions; Defendant/applicant: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Strike Out Application
Outcome
Claim struck out; claimant's applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Res Judicata, Abuse of Process, Harassment, Misconduct in Public Office, Breach of Contract, Conspiracy to Injure, Duty of Care, CPR 3.4
Civil Procedure Public Law Tort Law Contract Law Res Judicata Abuse of Process Harassment Misconduct in Public Office +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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Boyce

Claimant/respondent

Department of Work and Pensions

Defendant/applicant

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim is an abuse of process due to relitigation of previously determined issues
  2. 2 Whether the claim discloses reasonable grounds
  3. 3 Whether a stay should be granted pending appeal in earlier proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is struck out as an abuse of process because it attempts to relitigate issues already determined or which should have been raised in previous proceedings. There is no material legal distinction between the current and prior claims, and the claims have received judicial consideration. Privity exists between the Secretary of State and the DWP. The claimant's submissions lack merit.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out; claimant's applications dismissed

Orders

  • Claim struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(b)
  • Claimant's application for stay refused