Background
KDY, a disabled child with an Education, Health and Care Plan, and his mother, NGP, brought claims arising from approximately six years of interactions with schools, a local authority, an NHS trust, and community organisations. Their 247-page Particulars of Claim, supplemented by annexes and extensive supporting materials, alleged negligence, clinical negligence, breaches of statutory duty, discrimination, harassment, victimisation, human-rights violations, misfeasance in public office, data-protection violations, and other wrongs. They sought approximately £1.8 million in damages on a cumulative and joint basis.
Four groups of defendants applied to strike out the claims or obtain summary judgment. They argued, among other things, that the High Court lacked jurisdiction over the Equality Act 2010 claims, portions of the case were time-barred or duplicated other proceedings, several asserted causes of action were legally unavailable, and the pleading was so lengthy and interwoven that the defendants could not respond proportionately. NGP opposed the applications and requested permission to amend if the court identified pleading deficiencies.
The Court’s Holding
The High Court struck out the entire Particulars of Claim under CPR 3.4 and dismissed the claim against all defendants. The Equality Act claims belonged in the County Court and therefore could not proceed in the High Court. The court also held that the claimants could not combine separate decisions by different institutions over several years into a single continuing course of conduct for limitation purposes. Human Rights Act claims arising before 17 September 2024 were time-barred, and the remaining human-rights allegations did not disclose viable claims.
The court also struck out claims for stigmatisation, misfeasance in public office, certain education-related duties asserted against parties that did not owe them, and NGP’s psychiatric-injury claims arising from alleged harm to her child. The remaining pleading did not concisely identify each defendant’s duty, breach, causation, and resulting loss, contrary to CPR 16.4. Although the child’s clinical-negligence claim against the NHS trust could have a proper legal basis in principle, the pleaded version lacked treatment details and expert-informed allegations of breach and causation. The dismissal did not bar a future court from considering a new, properly pleaded clinical-negligence claim supported by a suitably qualified expert.
Key Takeaways
- Equality Act 2010 claims within section 114 must be brought in the County Court, subject to the statute’s specified exceptions; the High Court could not adjudicate them here.
- A claimant cannot convert distinct decisions by multiple institutions over several years into one continuing course of conduct merely to avoid statutory limitation periods.
- Even in complex multi-defendant litigation, particulars must concisely identify the material facts, duties, breaches, causation, and loss attributable to each defendant.
Why It Matters
The judgment illustrates that strike out may be justified where the structure of a pleading obscures the claims, prevents proportionate responses, and combines legally distinct events and defendants into an unsupported theory of cumulative liability. Litigants in person remain subject to the Civil Procedure Rules, although strike out for procedural noncompliance remains a measure of last resort.
The decision also distinguishes dismissal of a deficiently pleaded claim from a substantive determination that no properly formulated claim could ever exist. In particular, the court expressly left open the possibility that KDY could later bring a properly pleaded and expert-supported clinical-negligence claim against the NHS trust.