Clarke v Arc Legal Assistance Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 56 (QB) (21 January 2020)

Clarke v Arc Legal Assistance Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 56 (QB) (21 January 2020)

The claim was incoherent, failed to plead material facts or loss, did not disclose any legally recognisable cause of action, and was an abuse of process as it sought to relitigate matters and attack adverse decisions without cogent basis. The only appropriate remedy was to strike out the claim.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 56
Parties
Claimant: Phyliss Clarke; First Defendant: ARC Legal Assistance Limited; Second Defendant: Bar Standards Board; Third Defendant: DAS Legal Expenses Insurance Company Limited; Fourth Defendant: The Financial Ombudsman Service Limited; Fifth Defendant: Legal Ombudsman; Sixth Defendant: Solicitors Regulation Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil (queen's Bench Division) / Application to Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment
Outcome
Claim struck out
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Breach of Contract, Breach of Confidentiality, Fraud, Human Rights, Judicial Review, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Regulatory Law Strike Out Applications Summary Judgment Breach of Contract Breach of Confidentiality Fraud +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phyliss Clarke

Claimant

ARC Legal Assistance Limited

First Defendant

Bar Standards Board

Second Defendant

DAS Legal Expenses Insurance Company Limited

Third Defendant

The Financial Ombudsman Service Limited

Fourth Defendant

Legal Ombudsman

Fifth Defendant

Solicitors Regulation Authority

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (queen's Bench Division) / Application to Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim discloses reasonable grounds for bringing the claim
  2. 2 Whether the claim is an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether the claim should be struck out or summary judgment granted

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was incoherent, failed to plead material facts or loss, did not disclose any legally recognisable cause of action, and was an abuse of process as it sought to relitigate matters and attack adverse decisions without cogent basis. The only appropriate remedy was to strike out the claim.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out

Orders

  • Claim struck out in its entirety
  • Parties to agree consequential orders including costs or apply in writing within 14 days