Ness v Miller [2026] EWHC 113 (KB) (27 January 2026)

Ness v Miller [2026] EWHC 113 (KB) (27 January 2026)

The false imprisonment and data protection claims against D1 are struck out as disclosing no reasonable grounds, being precluded by prior findings and/or witness immunity. The application to amend to add D2–D4 as defendants and to plead conspiracy is refused as the proposed claims are inadequately particularised, lack a proper factual basis, and do not meet the threshold for accessory liability or conspiracy. The court exercises its discretion to refuse permission to amend and to strike out the claims, having regard to the overriding objective and the need for clear, particularised pleadings in serious allegations.

Citation
[2026] EWHC 113 (KB)
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 Media and Communications (libel, Data Protection, False Imprisonment, Conspiracy) / Post Trial Applications: Strike Out and Amendment Applications Following Preliminary Issues Trial
Outcome
Claims struck out; amendment application refused; costs reserved for further submissions.
Legal Topics
Libel, False Imprisonment, Data Protection (uk GDPR, DPA 2018), Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Amendment of Pleadings, Strike Out Applications, Witness Immunity, Accessory Liability
Media Law Data Protection Law Tort Law Civil Procedure Libel False Imprisonment Data Protection (uk Gdpr, DPA 2018) Unlawful Means Conspiracy +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 19 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 Media and Communications (libel, Data Protection, False Imprisonment, Conspiracy) / Post Trial Applications: Strike Out and Amendment Applications Following Preliminary Issues Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the false imprisonment claim against D1 should be struck out for disclosing no reasonable grounds
  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 and data protection claims against D1 are struck out as disclosing no reasonable grounds, being precluded by prior findings and/or witness immunity. The application to amend to add D2–D4 as defendants and to plead conspiracy is refused as the proposed claims are inadequately particularised, lack a proper factual basis, and do not meet the threshold for accessory liability or conspiracy. The court exercises its discretion to refuse permission to amend and to strike out the claims, having regard to the overriding objective and the need for clear, particularised pleadings in serious allegations.

Court Disposition

Claims struck out; amendment application refused; costs reserved for further submissions.

Orders

  • The false imprisonment and data protection claims against D1 are struck out.
  • Permission to amend to add D2–D4 as defendants and to plead conspiracy is refused.