Kamala Devi Singh v Grief to Grace
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Master Cook |
| Judgment Date | 01 December 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EWHC 2999 (KB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: QB-2021-001805 |
| Court | King's Bench Division |
[2022] EWHC 2999 (KB)
Master David Cook
Case No: QB-2021-001805
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Louis Browne KC and Tom Longstaff (instructed by Keller Postman UK Ltd) for the Claimant
Claire Overman (instructed by Stone King) for the 1 st and 2 nd Defendants
Kate Wilson (instructed by Keoghs) for the 3 rd Defendant the 4 th to 15 th Defendants and 28 th Defendant.
Hearing dates: 18 th July and 24 October 2022
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
This is the hearing of the Claimant's application for an anonymity order pursuant to CPR39.2 and to amend the claim form and particulars of claim pursuant to CPR 17.1 (2)(a). A third issue relating to service of the proceedings on the 2 nd Defendant was resolved between the parties prior to the hearing. The Defendants professed to be neutral in relation to the issue of the anonymity order but opposed the application to amend.
A brief introduction to the background and to the parties.
The application was supported by the witness statement of Matthew Evans dated 11 July 2022. The 1 st and 2 nd Defendants relied upon the witness statement of Jonathan Copping dated 11 July 2022. The 4 th to 15 th and 28 th Defendants rely upon the witness statement of Katie Rose dated 11 July 2022.
The Claimant is a practising Catholic. She wished to be admitted to consecration in the Ordo virginum within the Roman Catholic Church. A description of the Ordo virginum (its history, nature, and matters relating to the path to consecration) can be found in the “ Instruction on the Ordo Virginum”, a publication by the Vatican which is exhibited to Ms Rose's witness statement. Paragraphs 46–51 of the Instruction set out the role of the diocesan bishop in the process and paragraphs 47 and 50 state that consecration of a woman is, ultimately, a decision for the diocesan bishop.
The Claimant first met the 28 th Defendant, now the Bishop of Salford, (“the Bishop”) in 2013 in connection with her desire to be consecrated into the Ordo. At the time, the Bishop was an Auxiliary Bishop attached to the Archdiocese of Westminster, where the Claimant then lived. The Bishop took up his role in Salford in December 2014.
The Claimant moved to Salford in July 2015 where she continued to seek consecration, however the Bishop concluded he would not consecrate her. It is abundantly clear from the material before this court that the Claimant is disappointed not to have achieved her objective.
The 4 th to 15 th Defendants are trustees of the Salford Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust and are alleged to be vicariously liable for the acts of the Bishop. I shall refer to these Defendants as “the Salford Defendants”.
The First Defendant is a company and registered charity providing a specialised 5 day programme of spiritual and psychological healing for anyone who has suffered sexual, physical, emotional or spiritual abuse in childhood, adolescence or adulthood by a member of the clergy. The 2 nd Defendant is a Roman Catholic Priest and a director of the 1 st Defendant. The 3 rd Defendant is alleged to be vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of the 2 nd Defendant.
In April 2020 the Claimant applied to attend a retreat organised by the First Defendant for which purpose she completed an application form. After consideration of the material submitted to them on 1 May 2020 the Second Defendant informed the Claimant that she was not a suitable candidate for the retreat. On 12 May 2020 the Second Defendant sent an e-mail to Ms Lundergan, who was the director of safeguarding for the Diocese of Salford because of concerns derived from the contents of her application form that she may have been a victim of clergy abuse.
The procedural background
On 8 September 2020 solicitors acting for the Claimant sent a pre-action protocol letter to the Bishop advancing a claim in harassment. The Claimant sought; i, an apology, ii, the Bishop's consent to accept the Claimant for consecration into the Ordo virginum, iii, a contribution to her costs and expenses. The letter sought production of documents and concluded with a threat to commence proceedings “ which would be a matter of public record” if the remedies claimed were not forthcoming. It also reserved the right to bring a claim in defamation.
On 3 November 2020 solicitors for the Bishop responded with a detailed letter rebutting the claims of harassment and asserting that the Claimant had harassed the Bishop following her move to Salford and provided a large number of relevant documents.
On 1 April 2021 the Claimant made a Subject Access Request to the Data Protection officer of the Salford Diocese. A large number of documents were supplied to the Claimant's solicitors including many which had been disclosed in November 2020.
The claim form was issued on 11 May 2021 and an amended claim form and particulars of claim were served on all Defendants on 10 September 2021. The particulars of claim were over 44 pages long. It is fair to say that these particulars of claim were not a model of clarity. The Claimant's solicitors when writing to the 2 nd Defendant on 8 September 2021 stated, “we appreciate that it may be difficult for you, looking at the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim, to understand the description of the claim(/s) against you as a defendant. This is very regrettable.”.
The claims set out in the amended claim form and particulars of claim are extensive and arise from the e-mails and documentation referred to above. I do not intend to set them out in detail because the particulars of claim have since been replaced in their entirety. But I will set out a short summary derived from paragraphs 13 and 14 of Ms Wilson's skeleton argument.
As against the Salford Defendants:
i) Injunctions to rectify inaccurate personal data and to restrain the use of the e-mail sent by the Second Defendant on 12 May 2020 [the Email] and to identify to whom the Email or its contents had been disclosed: Amended claim form continuation sheet 2 paragraph 3.
ii) Damages for harassment: Amended claim form continuation sheet 2 paragraph 6.
iii) Damages for libel and/or conspiracy in respect of the Email: Amended claim form continuation sheet 2, para 7 and particulars of claim paragraph 72.
iv) a claim in malicious falsehood in parallel with the libel claim in respect of the Email; particulars of claim paragraph 81.
As against the Third Defendant
i) Claims for breach of confidence, misuse of private information, and breach of the Data Protection Act 2018 in respect of “ incidents” on 11 and/or 12 May 2020 and “consequential incidents”.
ii) Claims for injunctions to rectify the Claimant's inaccurate personal data, restrain the use of the Email and to inform her to whom they had disclosed the Email or its contents: Amended claim form continuation sheet 2, paragraph 3.
iii) a claim against the Third Defendant based on vicarious liability for the Second Defendant. The Claimant asserted that there is a “ special form” of vicarious liability for dioceses in respect of priests in their area (particulars of claim paragraphs 90–91). She thereby sought a finding of liability against the Third Defendant in relation to all causes of action advanced against the Second Defendant, namely in deceit and malicious falsehood/conspiracy.
The parties agreed to extend time for the service of defences to allow for mediation. Following an unsuccessful mediation which took place on 21 st January 2022 the Claimant's solicitors stated their intention to amend her claims and serve a draft amended particulars of claim. They also formally discontinued claims against the 16 th to 18 th Defendants.
The Claimant produced a 33 page draft amended particulars of claim on 18 February 2022 and subsequently a draft re-amended claim form on 4 March 2022. By these draft statements of case the Claimant abandoned all the claims which she had previously advanced against the Salford Defendants and sought to advance new claims. She abandoned various claims against the Second Defendant, and thereby the Third Defendant, but did retain (albeit redrafted) claims for libel, breach of confidence, misuse of private information and Data Protection Act claims arising from or otherwise connected to the Email: see draft amended particulars of claim paragraphs 91, 95, 100 and 113.
Following further correspondence between the parties in which further shortcomings in the pleadings were raised the Claimant's solicitors indicated that they would produce a further revised draft of the amended particulars of claim and make a formal application to amend the claim.
The application to amend was originally listed for hearing before me on 18 July 2022 with a time estimate of a half day. On that occasion I agreed to sit in private pending resolution of the Claimant's application for anonymity. In the exercise of my case management powers under CPR 3.1 (m) I decided to hear the application to amend in relation to the defamation claims and to adjourn the balance of the application to a further hearing. I made this decision partly because there was insufficient time to deal with all of the amendment issues and partly because the Claimant was alleging misuse of confidential information in circumstances where she had not set out in a confidential schedule the particulars of the information, she alleged to...
To continue reading
Request your trial