Richards v Investigatory Powers Tribunal & Ors

Richards v Investigatory Powers Tribunal & Ors

The claims against the applicant defendants disclose no reasonable cause of action, are in many cases repetitive of previous claims, and are totally without merit. The requirements for an extended civil restraint order are met as the claimant has persistently issued totally without merit claims or applications. Human rights arguments do not override statutory bars or procedural rules. The claim against Whittington Hospital is not struck out at this stage, but the claimant is given a final opportunity to amend and provide medical evidence.

Parties
Claimant: Mandy Richards; 1st Defendant: Investigatory Powers Tribunal; 2nd Defendant: Undercover Policing Inquiry; 3rd Defendant: Metropolitan Police; 4th Defendant: MI5; 5th Defendant: MI6; 6th Defendant: Hackney Council; 7th Defendant: The Army; 8th Defendant: Progress; 9th Defendant: Royal Mail; 10th Defendant: Peabody; 11th Defendant: Department of Health; 12th Defendant: Mildmay Practice; 13th Defendant: Homerton Hospital NHS Foundation Trust; 14th Defendant: Whittington Hospital NHS Trust; 15th Defendant: University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; 16th Defendant: Guys and St Thomas’ Hospital Foundation Trust; 17th Defendant: Kings College Hospital Trust; 18th Defendant: Royal Free NHS Foundation Trust; 19th Defendant: Virgin Media; 20th Defendant: UK Power Network Ltd; 21st Defendant: Npower; 22nd Defendant: Thames Water Utilities Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application to Strike Out, Application for Extended Civil Restraint Order, and Application to Set Aside Previous Order
Outcome
Claims against applicant defendants struck out as totally without merit; ECROs granted in favour of successful applicant defendants; Claimant's application to set aside previous order dismissed; Claim against Whittington Hospital not struck out at this stage, claimant given opportunity to amend and provide medical...
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Extended Civil Restraint Orders, Abuse of Process, Human Rights Act, Judicial Review, Personal Injury, Clinical Negligence
Civil Procedure Human Rights Public Law Strike Out Applications Extended Civil Restraint Orders Abuse of Process Human Rights Act Judicial Review +2 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mandy Richards

Claimant

Investigatory Powers Tribunal

1st Defendant

Undercover Policing Inquiry

2nd Defendant

Metropolitan Police

3rd Defendant

MI5

4th Defendant

MI6

5th Defendant

Hackney Council

6th Defendant

The Army

7th Defendant

Progress

8th Defendant

Royal Mail

9th Defendant

Peabody

10th Defendant

Department of Health

11th Defendant

Mildmay Practice

12th Defendant

Homerton Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

13th Defendant

Whittington Hospital NHS Trust

14th Defendant

University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

15th Defendant

Guys and St Thomas’ Hospital Foundation Trust

16th Defendant

Kings College Hospital Trust

17th Defendant

Royal Free NHS Foundation Trust

18th Defendant

Virgin Media

19th Defendant

UK Power Network Ltd

20th Defendant

Npower

21st Defendant

Thames Water Utilities Ltd

22nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application to Strike Out, Application for Extended Civil Restraint Order, and Application to Set Aside Previous Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claims disclose any reasonable cause of action against the defendants
  2. 2 Whether the claims are an abuse of process as repetitive or duplicative of previous claims
  3. 3 Whether the claims are totally without merit

Ratio Decidendi

The claims against the applicant defendants disclose no reasonable cause of action, are in many cases repetitive of previous claims, and are totally without merit. The requirements for an extended civil restraint order are met as the claimant has persistently issued totally without merit claims or applications. Human rights arguments do not override statutory bars or procedural rules. The claim against Whittington Hospital is not struck out at this stage, but the claimant is given a final opportunity to amend and provide medical evidence.

Court Disposition

Claims against applicant defendants struck out as totally without merit; ECROs granted in favour of successful applicant defendants; Claimant's application to set aside previous order dismissed; Claim against Whittington Hospital not struck out at this stage, claimant given opportunity to amend and provide medical...

Orders

  • Claims against 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, 10th, 13th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st, and 22nd defendants struck out as totally without merit.
  • Extended civil restraint orders (ECROs) made in favour of 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, 10th, 13th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st, and 22nd defendants.