The court was asked as to the propriety of the procedure adopted by the circuit judge, who when considering a claim for false imprisonment, assault and trespass had initially acceded to an application by the defendant which was made without notice before deciding in the absence of the claimant first that the defendant’s officers had reasonable grounds for believing the particular person was present in the premises and second that the claimants would be prohibited from asking any questions of the defendants’ witnesses which might reveal the grounds for their belief. The ground of appeal was that the procedure adopted by the circuit judge was contrary to the ordinary rules of procedure and was unfair. Lord Bingham CJ explained that where the complaint was lack of particularity, then the defendant had three choices when faced with the contention that the claim should be struck out as disclosing no defence. They were first to accept that the paragraph should be struck out and second to contend that the paragraphs were unobjectionable while the third course which might be combined with the second course was to accept that the paragraphs were objectionable as they stood but to contend that they could be saved by amendment and by the addition of appropriate particulars. If the defendant felt inhibited from disclosing information, then this would be the proper subject of a claim for Public Iinterest Immunity.
Judges:
Lord Bingham CJ, May LJ
Citations:
[1999] EWCA Civ 3034
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Al Rawi and Others v The Security Service and Others QBD 18-Nov-2009
The claimants sought damages from the defendants saying that they had been held and ill treated at various detention centres by foreign authorities, but with the involvement of the defendants. The defendants sought to bring evidence before the court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Police, Litigation Practice
Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.346269
