Hersi & Co Solicitors & Anor v The Lord Chancellor [2018] EWHC 946 (QB) (26 April 2018)

Hersi & Co Solicitors & Anor v The Lord Chancellor [2018] EWHC 946 (QB) (26 April 2018)

The counterclaim and impugned parts of the defence were properly struck out as they were barred by absolute witness immunity, fundamentally lacking in particulars, and had no real prospect of success. The allegations amounted to an abuse of process and a collateral attack on previous judicial findings. The Appellants' failure to particularise and pursue the allegations in the relevant proceedings, and the absence of any application to cross-examine witnesses, further undermined the counterclaim. The application to set aside permission to appeal was refused as the breach of duty of candour, while serious, did not meet the high threshold for setting aside permission at this stage. The...

Citation
[2018] EWHC 946
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Hersi & Co Solicitors; Appellant/defendant: Ahmed Hersi; Respondent/claimant: The Lord Chancellor (as successor to the Legal Services Commission)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal Against Order Striking Out Counterclaim and Part of Defence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Witness Immunity, Misfeasance in Public Office, Defamation, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications, Judicial Review, Legal Aid Contracts
Civil Procedure Public Law Contract Law Witness Immunity Misfeasance in Public Office Defamation Summary Judgment Strike Out Applications +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 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hersi & Co Solicitors

Appellant/defendant

Ahmed Hersi

Appellant/defendant

The Lord Chancellor (as successor to the Legal Services Commission)

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal Against Order Striking Out Counterclaim and Part of Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the counterclaim and parts of the defence should be struck out for witness immunity, lack of particulars, or abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the principle of witness immunity applies to allegations of fraud, deceit, or misfeasance in public office
  3. 3 Whether the failure to particularise allegations justifies strike out or summary judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The counterclaim and impugned parts of the defence were properly struck out as they were barred by absolute witness immunity, fundamentally lacking in particulars, and had no real prospect of success. The allegations amounted to an abuse of process and a collateral attack on previous judicial findings. The Appellants' failure to particularise and pursue the allegations in the relevant proceedings, and the absence of any application to cross-examine witnesses, further undermined the counterclaim. The application to set aside permission to appeal was refused as the breach of duty of candour, while serious, did not meet the high threshold for setting aside permission at this stage. The...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; order of Master Yoxall upheld
  • Counterclaim and impugned parts of defence struck out