Ansari v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis & Ors [2024] EWHC 2006 (KB) (31 July 2024)

Ansari v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis & Ors [2024] EWHC 2006 (KB) (31 July 2024)

The Master's decision to strike out the claims (save for one wrongful arrest claim, for which an opportunity to amend was given) was not wrong in law or disproportionate. The statements of case were incoherent, failed to comply with CPR and Practice Direction 16, and did not disclose reasonable grounds for bringing the claims. The Claimant had adequate notice of the strike out application and was given an opportunity to explain her case. There was no serious procedural irregularity. The appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 2006 (KB)
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Marzieh Ansari; First Respondent/defendant: Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; Second Respondent/defendant: Crown Prosecution Service; Third Respondent/defendant: Chief Constable of Sussex Police
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (high Court, King's Bench Division) / Appeal From Order Striking Out Claims Under CPR 3.4(2)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Pleading Requirements, Wrongful Arrest, Malicious Prosecution, Negligence, Article 3 ECHR, Article 5 ECHR, Article 6 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Article 9 ECHR, Practice Direction 16, Costs
Civil Procedure Human Rights Police Law Tort Strike Out Applications Pleading Requirements Wrongful Arrest Malicious Prosecution +8 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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marzieh Ansari

Appellant/claimant

Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

First Respondent/defendant

Crown Prosecution Service

Second Respondent/defendant

Chief Constable of Sussex Police

Third Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (high Court, King's Bench Division) / Appeal From Order Striking Out Claims Under CPR 3.4(2)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Master's order striking out the claims was wrong in law or disproportionate
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant should have been given an opportunity to amend her pleadings
  3. 3 Whether the statements of case disclosed reasonable grounds for bringing the claims

Ratio Decidendi

The Master's decision to strike out the claims (save for one wrongful arrest claim, for which an opportunity to amend was given) was not wrong in law or disproportionate. The statements of case were incoherent, failed to comply with CPR and Practice Direction 16, and did not disclose reasonable grounds for bringing the claims. The Claimant had adequate notice of the strike out application and was given an opportunity to explain her case. There was no serious procedural irregularity. The appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed in full
  • Application to set aside under CPR 3.1(7) refused