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 because they were barred by the principle of absolute witness immunity, were unparticularised, and had no real prospect of success. The allegations related to evidence and conduct at the heart of judicial proceedings, falling squarely within the scope of immunity. The Appellants' failure to pursue or particularise these allegations in the underlying proceedings further undermined their case. There was no basis to allow re-pleading, and summary judgment was appropriate.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 946 (QB)
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, Queen's Bench Division) / Appeal Against Order Striking Out Counterclaim and Part of Defence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal not set aside but appeal fails on merits.
Legal Topics
Witness Immunity, Misfeasance in Public Office, Summary Judgment, Striking Out Pleadings, Defamation, Limitation, Judicial Review, Legal Aid Contracts
Civil Procedure Public Law Contract Law Tort Law Witness Immunity Misfeasance in Public Office Summary Judgment Striking Out Pleadings +4 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 4
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, Queen's Bench Division) / Appeal Against Order Striking Out Counterclaim and Part of Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does witness immunity bar the counterclaim alleging fraud, deceit, and misfeasance in public office against public officials?
  2. 2 Were the pleadings sufficiently particularised to survive strike out?
  3. 3 Should summary judgment be granted on the counterclaim?

Ratio Decidendi

The counterclaim and impugned parts of the defence were properly struck out because they were barred by the principle of absolute witness immunity, were unparticularised, and had no real prospect of success. The allegations related to evidence and conduct at the heart of judicial proceedings, falling squarely within the scope of immunity. The Appellants' failure to pursue or particularise these allegations in the underlying proceedings further undermined their case. There was no basis to allow re-pleading, and summary judgment was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal not set aside but appeal fails on merits.

Orders

  • Counterclaim and impugned paragraphs of defence remain struck out.
  • No permission to re-plead counterclaim granted.