DAVID BOYCE v DEPARTMENT OF WORK AND PENSIONS

DAVID BOYCE v DEPARTMENT OF WORK AND PENSIONS

The claim is struck out as an abuse of process under CPR 3.4(2)(b) because it seeks to relitigate issues that were or should have been raised in previous proceedings, and there is no material or legally relevant distinction between the present and prior claims or parties. The claimant’s arguments regarding distinctions between the parties and claims lack merit, and the proper remedy for dissatisfaction with previous decisions is appeal, not recommencement of claims.

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, Cause of Action Estoppel, Issue Estoppel, Abuse of Process, Striking Out Claims, Costs, Harassment, Misconduct in Public Office, Breach of Contract, Conspiracy to Injure, Duty of Care
Civil Procedure Employment Law Tort Law Contract Law Res Judicata Cause of Action Estoppel Issue Estoppel Abuse of Process +7 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 due to relitigation of issues already determined
  2. 2 Whether the claim discloses reasonable grounds for bringing the claim
  3. 3 Whether the claim should be stayed pending payment of costs from 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 that were or should have been raised in previous proceedings, and there is no material or legally relevant distinction between the present and prior claims or parties. The claimant’s arguments regarding distinctions between the parties and claims lack merit, and the proper remedy for dissatisfaction with previous decisions is appeal, not recommencement of claims.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out; claimant's applications dismissed

Orders

  • The claim is struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(b) as an abuse of process.
  • The claimant’s applications, including for a stay and for judgment, are dismissed.