An aspiring solicitor whose ‘failure to pause and reflect' before mounting an online attack on her former solicitor has had her claim struck out by the High Court.
In Humphries v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary, Master Stevens said that the allegations and causes of action brought by Bethany Theresa Humphries had 'been hard to pin down’.
Humphries had been arrested on suspicion of stalking involving fear of violence. As part of that investigation, the police took documents from her home which are subject to Humphries’ claim. Brooker acted for Humphries for ‘about three weeks’ before the police announced no further action.
Brooke applied to strike out Humphries’ case because there are ‘no reasonable grounds and/or are an abuse of process and/or…do not contain a concise statement of facts relied upon’. Humphries argued her case should not be struck out but instead given permission to ‘rectify the errors she had made in her pleading’.
Read more
The judge added that Humphries, a litigant in person, was not ‘wholly ignorant of due legal process or normal ways of conducting professional business, including raising complaints, as she has worked in a solicitor’s office and indeed has completed the second year of a university law degree’.
‘That failure to pause and reflect before mounting an attack on [Brooker] through her keyboard has set in train the sequence of events that has led to this application by [Brooker].’
Considering Humphries' allegations, the judge said: ‘The court also considers it a serious matter to suggest deliberate wrongdoing by a solicitor, who also has duties to the court, to uphold the law, when there is no clear factual basis for this. The claimant has failed to suggest how she would better particularise an allegation of collusion, and has had ample time and opportunity to think about this.’
Striking out the claims, the judge said: ‘The allegations do not meet the threshold criteria in the CPR on summary judgment applications as they disclose no reasonable prospect of success. It would be fanciful to believe a fuller investigation of the facts at trial would affect the outcome.
‘A strike out for abuse is a draconian step, and one way to cure pleadings is to allow amendments, but they need a realistic prospect of success, which I have been unable to establish.’
