Sinclair v Chief Constable Of West Yorkshire & Anor [2000] EWCA Civ 319 (12 December 2000)

Sinclair v Chief Constable Of West Yorkshire & Anor [2000] EWCA Civ 319 (12 December 2000)

The Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff's claim for malicious prosecution against BT had no real prospect of success as there was no evidence of impropriety or malice by BT or its employee Mr Kelly, and the judge at first instance erred in applying a mere arguability test rather than the correct 'real prospect' test under CPR 24.2. The action was therefore struck out.

Citation
[2000] EWCA Civ 319
Parties
Plaintiff: Mr Sinclair; First Defendant: Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire Police; Second Defendant/appellant: BT (British Telecommunications)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Strike Out Claim at High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; action struck out
Legal Topics
Malicious Prosecution, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications, Abuse of Process
Tort Law Civil Procedure Malicious Prosecution Summary Judgment Strike Out Applications Abuse of Process

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Sinclair

Plaintiff

Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire Police

First Defendant

BT (British Telecommunications)

Second Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Strike Out Claim at High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim for malicious prosecution against BT disclosed a real prospect of success under CPR 24.2
  2. 2 Whether there was sufficient evidence of impropriety or malice by BT in setting the law in motion against the plaintiff

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff's claim for malicious prosecution against BT had no real prospect of success as there was no evidence of impropriety or malice by BT or its employee Mr Kelly, and the judge at first instance erred in applying a mere arguability test rather than the correct 'real prospect' test under CPR 24.2. The action was therefore struck out.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; action struck out

Orders

  • Order made under section 11.1 of the Access to Justice Act
  • Application for permission to appeal to House of Lords refused