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 under CPR 3.4(2)(b) because it seeks to relitigate issues already determined or which should have been raised in previous proceedings. There is no material or legally relevant distinction between the present and previous claims, and the parties are privy for res judicata purposes. The claimant's arguments regarding party distinction and new claims are without merit.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 3963 (QB)
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 / Application to Strike Out Claim
Outcome
Claim struck out; claimant's applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Res Judicata, Abuse of Process, Strike Out Applications, Cause of Action Estoppel, Issue Estoppel, Misconduct in Public Office, Breach of Contract, Conspiracy to Injure, Duty of Care
Civil Procedure Public Law Res Judicata Abuse of Process Strike Out Applications Cause of Action Estoppel Issue Estoppel Misconduct in Public Office +3 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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
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 / Application to Strike Out Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim is an abuse of process as an attempt to relitigate issues previously determined
  2. 2 Whether the claim discloses any reasonable grounds for bringing the claim
  3. 3 Whether a stay should be granted pending resolution of appeals in earlier proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is struck out as an abuse of process under CPR 3.4(2)(b) because it seeks to relitigate issues already determined or which should have been raised in previous proceedings. There is no material or legally relevant distinction between the present and previous claims, and the parties are privy for res judicata purposes. The claimant's arguments regarding party distinction and new claims are without merit.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out; claimant's applications dismissed

Orders

  • The claim is struck out as an abuse of process under CPR 3.4(2)(b)
  • Claimant's application for a stay is refused