Second claim against the police for failure to investigate historic sexual abuse allegations struck out: BCLI v COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OF THE METROPOLIS [2024] EWHC 3018 (KB)

Background

The claimant, BCLI, alleged she was raped and sexually assaulted between 1966 and 1976. In 2011, she reported these historical abuses to the police, including allegations against her maternal grandfather, a gardener at a children's home, and her mother's partner, which she says the police failed to investigate. 

The claimant had previously brought a claim against the police force in February 2023 under the Human Rights Act 1998 when she alleged a deficient police investigation. The claim was withdrawn after a settlement. In 2024, the claimant filed a second claim against the police for misfeasance in public office.

The defendant submitted that the claim should be struck out as it was an abuse of process because it was res judicata, a doctrine which prevents a party from re-litigating any claim already litigated. This was pursuant to the principle in Henderson v Henderson [1843-60] All E.R. Rep. 378, [1843] 7 WLUK 87.  Alternatively, it was contended that the claim was brought out of time, and that it was, in any event, deficiently pleaded.

Held

The court struck out the claim, ruling it was res judicata. 

The principle in Henderson precluded parties from raising issues in subsequent proceedings that could and should have been raised earlier. There was a need for finality in litigation and to avoid the oppression of subjecting a defendant to repeated actions concerning the same matter. The question was whether the claimant's conduct was in all the circumstances an abuse of process: Aldi Stores Ltd v WSP Group Plc [2007] EWCA Civ 1260, [2008] 1 W.L.R. 748, [2007] 11 WLUK 721. 

In applying that approach and taking into account public and private interests, and all the facts, the second claim was held to be an abuse. Had the claimant wished to allege misfeasance against the defendant she could and should have done so within the first claim. Both the instant claim and the original claim, which had been discontinued, were identical save for the new cause of action. 

While the second claim was for slightly more damages, the heads of loss were the same. It had been open to the claimant to amend the original particulars of claim. She knew of her potential claim in misfeasance but decided not to amend the original pleading. The claimant had brought the second claim even though the new cause of action had been raised before she agreed to discontinue the original claim. That was a clear abuse. 

The court also found that the claim was time-barred and inadequately pleaded, lacking specific allegations of bad faith. The claimant's application to amend the pleadings was denied.

Comment

This case reaffirms the importance of bringing all relevant claims in initial proceedings and the rigorous standards required to plead misfeasance in public office. It also highlights the necessity of timely filing claims and adequately pleading all necessary elements of a claim.