Johnson v Devon And Cornwall Police & Ors [2023] EWHC 690 (Ch) (15 February 2023)
The particulars of claim failed to disclose any reasonable grounds, did not identify causes of action or responsible defendants, and did not comply with procedural requirements. The claim was an abuse of process and impeded the just disposal of proceedings. The claim against the third defendant was not properly served and had expired. Relief from sanction was granted to the fifth defendant for late filing, but the claim was struck out against the first, second, and fifth defendants under CPR 3.4(2).
- Citation
- [2023] EWHC 690 (Ch)
- Parties
- Claimant: Alison Meryl Johnson; First Defendant: Shaun Sawyer, Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall Police; Second Defendant: Sarah Crew, Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Police; Third Defendant: The Manager, Exeter Insolvency Service; Fourth Defendant: The Court Manager, Exeter Crown and County Courts; Fifth Defendant: Mr Robin Budenberg
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 15 February 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Civil (business List, Chancery Division) / Strike Out and Summary Judgment Applications
- Outcome
- Claim struck out against first, second, and fifth defendants; claim against third defendant expired for lack of service; relief from sanction granted to fifth defendant; no costs awarded to third defendant.
- Legal Topics
- Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Service of Process, Pleading Requirements, Relief From Sanctions, Costs, Litigants in Person, Collateral Attack on Criminal Conviction
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Alison Meryl Johnson
Claimant
Shaun Sawyer, Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall Police
First Defendant
Sarah Crew, Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Police
Second Defendant
The Manager, Exeter Insolvency Service
Third Defendant
The Court Manager, Exeter Crown and County Courts
Fourth Defendant
Mr Robin Budenberg
Fifth Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil (business List, Chancery Division) / Strike Out and Summary Judgment Applications
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claim against the third defendant was properly served and could proceed
- 2 Whether the particulars of claim disclosed reasonable grounds for bringing the claim
- 3 Whether the claim was an abuse of process or impeded the just disposal of proceedings
Ratio Decidendi
The particulars of claim failed to disclose any reasonable grounds, did not identify causes of action or responsible defendants, and did not comply with procedural requirements. The claim was an abuse of process and impeded the just disposal of proceedings. The claim against the third defendant was not properly served and had expired. Relief from sanction was granted to the fifth defendant for late filing, but the claim was struck out against the first, second, and fifth defendants under CPR 3.4(2).
Court Disposition
Claim struck out against first, second, and fifth defendants; claim against third defendant expired for lack of service; relief from sanction granted to fifth defendant; no costs awarded to third defendant.
Orders
- Claim struck out against first, second, and fifth defendants under CPR 3.4(2)
- Relief from sanction granted to fifth defendant for late filing of acknowledgement of service and defence
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment