Lloyd v Jagpal & Anor [2009] EWHC 1977 (Ch) (21 July 2009)

Lloyd v Jagpal & Anor [2009] EWHC 1977 (Ch) (21 July 2009)

The statement of case disclosed reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, was not an abuse of process, and any procedural disadvantage to the second defendant was remedied by the claimant's prompt disclosure of the images. The application to strike out was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 1977 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Danielle Lloyd; First Defendant: Deepak Jagpal; Second Defendant: Carphone Warehouse
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application to Strike Out Claim Against Second Defendant
Outcome
Application to strike out dismissed
Legal Topics
Strike Out Application, Vicarious Liability, Breach of Contract, Breach of Confidence, Invasion of Privacy, Data Protection Act, Disclosure of Evidence
Contract Law Tort Law Data Protection Privacy Law Strike Out Application Vicarious Liability Breach of Contract Breach of Confidence +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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Danielle Lloyd

Claimant

Deepak Jagpal

First Defendant

Carphone Warehouse

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application to Strike Out Claim Against Second Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the particulars of claim disclose reasonable grounds for bringing the claim against the second defendant
  2. 2 Whether the claim is an abuse of process or likely to obstruct the just disposal of proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the claimant failed to comply with procedural requirements regarding identification of images

Ratio Decidendi

The statement of case disclosed reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, was not an abuse of process, and any procedural disadvantage to the second defendant was remedied by the claimant's prompt disclosure of the images. The application to strike out was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed