header-logo header-logo

26 April 2024 / Ruth Pratt
Issue: 8068 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Tort
printer mail-detail

Procedural abuse: a rare but deadly tort

169184
Ruth Pratt examines the little-used ‘procedural abuse torts’ in civil claims
  • Identifies the torts of abuse of process and malicious prosecution of a civil claim.
  • Reviews their features, utility and most recent consideration in the case law.

What are ‘procedural abuse’ torts?

Dispute resolution lawyers will no doubt be familiar with striking out under CPR 3.4(2) for abuse of process. This happens because a statement of case either discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim; is an abuse of the court’s process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of proceedings; or because there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order.

These rules interplay with the so-called doctrine of Henderson abuse: to prevent successive claims being brought when a single claim could have disposed of the matter. These provisions are aimed at bringing proceedings to an early determination for abuse of the court’s processes from a procedural perspective. For a successful strike-out applicant, the benefit

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll