Baxendale- Walker v Middleton & Ors

Baxendale- Walker v Middleton & Ors

The claims against all defendants were struck out because they disclosed no real prospect of success, were barred by absolute privilege or immunity, constituted an impermissible collateral attack on previous final decisions, and/or failed on the merits. The disciplinary and regulatory proceedings were conducted by bodies and individuals protected by judicial and witness immunity. The claimant's allegations were unsupported by cogent evidence, and the claims against the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal failed for lack of legal personality and vicarious liability. The claims were also, in part, time-barred.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Paul Baxendale-Walker; Defendant/applicant (1st): David Middleton; Defendant/applicant (2nd): Martyn Duerden; Defendant/applicant (3rd): The Law Society of England and Wales (Solicitors Regulation Authority); Defendant/applicant (4th): Aidan Langley; Defendant (5th): Alex Thornton; Defendant/applicant (6th): Steven Woodhouse; Defendant/applicant (7th): Deloitte & Touche LLP; Defendant/applicant (8th): Anthony Hyman Isaacs; Defendant/applicant (9th): The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Applications to Strike Out and for Summary Judgment
Outcome
Claims struck out and summary judgment granted for all defendants.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Conspiracy to Injure, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Misfeasance in Public Office, Judicial Immunity, Witness Privilege, Collateral Attack, Limitation of Actions
Civil Procedure Professional Discipline Tort Strike Out Applications Summary Judgment Conspiracy to Injure Unlawful Means Conspiracy Misfeasance 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 6 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Baxendale-Walker

Claimant/respondent

David Middleton

Defendant/applicant (1st)

Martyn Duerden

Defendant/applicant (2nd)

The Law Society of England and Wales (Solicitors Regulation Authority)

Defendant/applicant (3rd)

Aidan Langley

Defendant/applicant (4th)

Alex Thornton

Defendant (5th)

Steven Woodhouse

Defendant/applicant (6th)

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Defendant/applicant (7th)

Anthony Hyman Isaacs

Defendant/applicant (8th)

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal

Defendant/applicant (9th)

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Applications to Strike Out and for Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claims against the defendants disclose a real prospect of success
  2. 2 Whether the claims are barred by absolute privilege or immunity
  3. 3 Whether the claims constitute a collateral attack on previous decisions

Ratio Decidendi

The claims against all defendants were struck out because they disclosed no real prospect of success, were barred by absolute privilege or immunity, constituted an impermissible collateral attack on previous final decisions, and/or failed on the merits. The disciplinary and regulatory proceedings were conducted by bodies and individuals protected by judicial and witness immunity. The claimant's allegations were unsupported by cogent evidence, and the claims against the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal failed for lack of legal personality and vicarious liability. The claims were also, in part, time-barred.

Court Disposition

Claims struck out and summary judgment granted for all defendants.

Orders

  • All claims against the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Defendants are struck out.
  • Summary judgment entered for the defendants.