Yuk Ming Cheung v Office of Intercollegiate Services & Ors

Yuk Ming Cheung v Office of Intercollegiate Services & Ors

The claim was struck out and summary judgment entered because the claimant’s allegations were unsupported by evidence, fanciful, and bound to fail. Declaratory relief was not available as a matter of law. Witness and advocate immunity applied to all relevant conduct. There was no abuse of process or collateral attack. Service on Hewitsons was valid. There was no basis to set aside the order refusing default judgment.

Parties
Claimant: Mr Yuk Ming Cheung; 1st Defendant: Office of Intercollegiate Services; 2nd Defendant: Downing College Cambridge; 3rd Defendant: Ms Imogen Proud; 4th Defendant: HCR Hewitsons; 5th Defendant: Mr Michael Armitage
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim (declaratory Relief, Alleged Misconduct in Prior Judicial Review) / Strike Out/summary Judgment Applications
Outcome
Claim struck out and summary judgment for all defendants. Claim declared totally without merit. Applications by claimant refused.
Legal Topics
Strike Out, Summary Judgment, Declaratory Relief, Witness Immunity, Advocate Immunity, Collateral Attack/abuse of Process, Service of Process
Civil Procedure Tort Legal Profession Strike Out Summary Judgment Declaratory Relief Witness Immunity Advocate Immunity +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 27 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Yuk Ming Cheung

Claimant

Office of Intercollegiate Services

1st Defendant

Downing College Cambridge

2nd Defendant

Ms Imogen Proud

3rd Defendant

HCR Hewitsons

4th Defendant

Mr Michael Armitage

5th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim (declaratory Relief, Alleged Misconduct in Prior Judicial Review) / Strike Out/summary Judgment Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are the claimant’s allegations fanciful, irrelevant, or unsupported by evidence?
  2. 2 Is the claimant entitled to declaratory relief as a matter of law?
  3. 3 Are Dr Yunus and the barrister defendants protected by immunity?

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was struck out and summary judgment entered because the claimant’s allegations were unsupported by evidence, fanciful, and bound to fail. Declaratory relief was not available as a matter of law. Witness and advocate immunity applied to all relevant conduct. There was no abuse of process or collateral attack. Service on Hewitsons was valid. There was no basis to set aside the order refusing default judgment.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out and summary judgment for all defendants. Claim declared totally without merit. Applications by claimant refused.

Orders

  • Claim struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a)
  • Summary judgment for all defendants under CPR 24.3