BPA v NXT [2026] EWHC 1095 (KB) (08 May 2026)

BPA v NXT [2026] EWHC 1095 (KB) (08 May 2026)

The claim was not struck out at this stage because, despite serious deficiencies in the pleadings and schedule of loss, the interests of justice required giving the claimant (a litigant in person with vulnerabilities) a final opportunity to amend her claim and provide medical evidence, subject to unless orders. The claims for breach of the Human Rights Act, coercive control, and breach of professional duties as a barrister were struck out as unsustainable. Anonymity was granted to both parties due to statutory requirements and the serious, potentially irreparable reputational harm to the defendant, with the order to be kept under review.

Citation
[2026] EWHC 1095 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: BPA; Defendant: NXT
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 May 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Applications (strike Out, Summary Judgment, Anonymity)
Outcome
Partially allowed; claim not struck out but defective claims struck out and unless orders made.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Anonymity Orders, Harassment, Sexual Assault, Pleading Requirements, Costs
Civil Procedure Tort Law Human Rights Strike Out Applications Summary Judgment Anonymity Orders Harassment Sexual Assault +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 4 Authorities cited 43 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BPA

Claimant

NXT

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Applications (strike Out, Summary Judgment, Anonymity)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim should be struck out for failing to disclose reasonable grounds or as an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment should be granted for the defendant
  3. 3 Whether anonymity orders should be granted for the parties

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was not struck out at this stage because, despite serious deficiencies in the pleadings and schedule of loss, the interests of justice required giving the claimant (a litigant in person with vulnerabilities) a final opportunity to amend her claim and provide medical evidence, subject to unless orders. The claims for breach of the Human Rights Act, coercive control, and breach of professional duties as a barrister were struck out as unsustainable. Anonymity was granted to both parties due to statutory requirements and the serious, potentially irreparable reputational harm to the defendant, with the order to be kept under review.

Court Disposition

Partially allowed; claim not struck out but defective claims struck out and unless orders made.

Orders

  • Anonymity order granted for both parties until further order.
  • Claims for breach of the Human Rights Act, coercive control, and breach of professional duties as a barrister struck out.