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 struck out because it was incoherent, failed to disclose reasonable grounds, was abusive, and could not be remedied by amendment. The claimant failed to plead specific facts or losses, and her allegations of breach of contract, confidentiality, fraud, and human rights violations were unsupported and inadequately particularised. The proper route for challenging regulatory decisions was judicial review, not ordinary proceedings.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 56 (QB)
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 Allegations, Human Rights Act (article 6), Judicial Review, Civil Procedure Rules
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Professional Regulation Human Rights Strike Out Applications Summary Judgment Breach of Contract Breach of Confidentiality +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 5 Authorities cited 10 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 under CPR 3.4(2)

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was struck out because it was incoherent, failed to disclose reasonable grounds, was abusive, and could not be remedied by amendment. The claimant failed to plead specific facts or losses, and her allegations of breach of contract, confidentiality, fraud, and human rights violations were unsupported and inadequately particularised. The proper route for challenging regulatory decisions was judicial review, not ordinary proceedings.

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