Christopher Ness v Jennifer Miller

Christopher Ness v Jennifer Miller

The false imprisonment claim against D1 was struck out because the pleading failed to show D1 went beyond giving information to police or procured the arrest, and lacked particularity regarding alleged falsity. The data protection claim against D1 was struck out as it relied on factual allegations already rejected in the Libel Judgment and was unparticularised. Applications to amend to add D2–D4 and conspiracy claims were refused due to deficient pleading, lack of evidential support, and failure to meet CPR 19.2 criteria. The data protection claim against D4 was refused as not desirable or proportionate to add, given its modest nature and lack of pleaded loss or damage.

Parties
Claimant: Christopher Ness; Defendant: Jennifer Miller; Proposed Defendant: Michelle Sojka; Proposed Defendant: Joanna Sojka; Proposed Defendant: Lindsay Gauntlett
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Preliminary Issues, Strike Out and Amendment Applications
Outcome
All claims struck out; amendment applications refused.
Legal Topics
False Imprisonment, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Data Protection (uk GDPR, DPA 2018), Strike Out Applications, Amendment of Pleadings, Witness Immunity, Jameel Abuse
Tort Data Protection Civil Procedure False Imprisonment Unlawful Means Conspiracy Data Protection (uk Gdpr, DPA 2018) Strike Out Applications Amendment of Pleadings +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 7 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Ness

Claimant

Jennifer Miller

Defendant

Michelle Sojka

Proposed Defendant

Joanna Sojka

Proposed Defendant

Lindsay Gauntlett

Proposed Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Preliminary Issues, Strike Out and Amendment Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the false imprisonment claim against D1 should be struck out
  2. 2 Whether the remaining data protection claim against D1 should be struck out
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant should be permitted to amend his claim to join D2–D4 and add a claim for conspiracy

Ratio Decidendi

The false imprisonment claim against D1 was struck out because the pleading failed to show D1 went beyond giving information to police or procured the arrest, and lacked particularity regarding alleged falsity. The data protection claim against D1 was struck out as it relied on factual allegations already rejected in the Libel Judgment and was unparticularised. Applications to amend to add D2–D4 and conspiracy claims were refused due to deficient pleading, lack of evidential support, and failure to meet CPR 19.2 criteria. The data protection claim against D4 was refused as not desirable or proportionate to add, given its modest nature and lack of pleaded loss or damage.

Court Disposition

All claims struck out; amendment applications refused.

Orders

  • False imprisonment claim against D1 struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a).
  • Data protection claim against D1 struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and/or (2)(b).