Burrell v Clifford [2015] EWHC 2001 (Ch) (14 July 2015)

Burrell v Clifford [2015] EWHC 2001 (Ch) (14 July 2015)

The claim was not clearly statute-barred as section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 could apply due to the covert nature of the breach. The claim was not an abuse of process because there was a real prospect of more than nominal damages, and the other factors raised by the defendant did not cumulatively justify striking out the claim. Disproportionate costs should be managed by case management and costs budgeting, not by striking out the claim.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 2001 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Paul Burrell; Defendant: Max Clifford
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Claim
Outcome
Defendant's application to strike out the claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Abuse of Process, Breach of Confidence, Misuse of Private Information, Damages, Costs Management
Civil Procedure Privacy Law Confidentiality Limitation of Actions Abuse of Process Breach of Confidence Misuse of Private Information Damages +1 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Burrell

Claimant

Max Clifford

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim is statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1980 or saved by section 32 (concealment)
  2. 2 Whether the claim should be struck out as an abuse of process under the Jameel jurisdiction due to disproportionate costs and minimal likely damages

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was not clearly statute-barred as section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 could apply due to the covert nature of the breach. The claim was not an abuse of process because there was a real prospect of more than nominal damages, and the other factors raised by the defendant did not cumulatively justify striking out the claim. Disproportionate costs should be managed by case management and costs budgeting, not by striking out the claim.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application to strike out the claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Application to strike out on limitation grounds dismissed.
  • Application to strike out as abuse of process dismissed.