Candy v Holyoake & Ors (No 2) [2017] EWHC 2943 (QB) (22 November 2017)

Candy v Holyoake & Ors (No 2) [2017] EWHC 2943 (QB) (22 November 2017)

The claimant's Second Response did not comply with the court's order and the pleadings remain flawed and insufficiently particularised. However, striking out the claim would be disproportionate given the circumstances. The appropriate course is to make an unless order requiring proper compliance and amendment. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2943
Parties
Claimant: Nicholas Anthony Christopher Candy; Defendant: Mark Alan Holyoake; Defendant: Emma Adanma Holyoake; Defendant: David Clive Wells; Defendant: William Alexander Charles Pym; Defendant: William Derrick Lovering
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application (strike Out, Amendment, Unless Order)
Outcome
Claim not struck out; unless order made; permission to amend refused in current form; liberty to re-apply with proper formulation.
Legal Topics
Breach of Confidence, Misuse of Private Information, Data Protection, Civil Procedure—strike Out, Civil Procedure—amendment of Pleadings, Conspiracy (unlawful Means and to Injure)
Civil Procedure Privacy Law Data Protection Tort Law Breach of Confidence Misuse of Private Information Civil Procedure—strike Out Civil Procedure—amendment of Pleadings +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicholas Anthony Christopher Candy

Claimant

Mark Alan Holyoake

Defendant

Emma Adanma Holyoake

Defendant

David Clive Wells

Defendant

William Alexander Charles Pym

Defendant

William Derrick Lovering

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application (strike Out, Amendment, Unless Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's pleadings and responses comply with court orders and procedural rules
  2. 2 Whether the claim in breach of confidence, misuse of private information, and data protection is sufficiently particularised to proceed to trial
  3. 3 Whether the claimant should be permitted to amend pleadings to add claims in conspiracy

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's Second Response did not comply with the court's order and the pleadings remain flawed and insufficiently particularised. However, striking out the claim would be disproportionate given the circumstances. The appropriate course is to make an unless order requiring proper compliance and amendment. The proposed amendments to expand the scope of the claim and to add conspiracy claims are refused as too vague and late, but the claimant may re-apply with properly formulated amendments.

Court Disposition

Claim not struck out; unless order made; permission to amend refused in current form; liberty to re-apply with proper formulation.

Orders

  • Unless order requiring claimant to properly particularise claims and comply with court order by specified date, failing which the claim will be struck out.
  • Permission to amend pleadings refused in current form; liberty to re-apply with properly formulated amendments.