Peter Gaisiance v (1) Chief Constable of British Transport Police

Hearing date: 28 November 2024

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 10 February 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives (see eg ).

Master Fontaine SITTING IN RETIREMENT

This was the hearing of the following applications:

(i) The First Defendant's application dated 30 August 2024, supported by the witness statement of Matthew Foden dated 30 August 2024, for strike out and/or summary judgment;

(ii) the Second Defendant's application dated 9 September 2024, supported by the witness statement of Emma Jean Gallimore 9 September 2024, for strike out and/or summary judgment;

(iii) the Third Defendant's application dated 18 September 2024, supported by the witness statement of Ian Ross Tucker dated 18 September 2024, for strike out and/or summary judgment;

(iv) the Claimant's application dated 16 September 2024 for trial directions and if necessary, summary judgment.

The Claimant served and filed a witness statement dated 11 September 2024 in response to the witness statement of Emma Jean Gallimore, a witness statement dated 22 September 2024 in response to the witness statement of Matthew Foden and a witness statement dated 22 September 2024 in response to the witness statement of Ian Ross Tucker.

The Factual Background to the Claim

I summarise the facts set out in the Particulars of Claim and evidence filed as follows. The Claimant's claim arises out of an incident on 29 December 2023, when the Claimant was travelling on a Great Western Railway (GWR) train from Oxford to London. He had intended to get a Chiltern Railways train and had a ticket for the Chiltern service to London Marylebone. When he arrived at the station there was no information about the train he was due to take, and when he asked one of the security staff he was told that it had been cancelled and that there were no Chiltern services at that time, but that although his ticket was valid only for the Chiltern service, because of the disruption he could travel on a GWR operated train to London Paddington. He accordingly boarded a GWR train, but when the train reached Reading a ticket inspector told him that his ticket was not valid and he would have to purchase another ticket. Whilst he was disputing this with the ticket inspector, another passenger, the Fifth Defendant (Jack Neary) intervened and interrupted the conversation between the ticket inspector and the Claimant, telling the Claimant that he must buy another ticket. The Claimant asked Jack Neary to stop talking and there was an altercation between them.

When the Claimant arrived in London he was arrested by police of the First Defendant for making threats to kill, who took him to Hammersmith Police Station where he was detained in a custody suite by officers of the Second Defendant. The Claimant was told by the Police that Jack Neary had reported that the Claimant had threatened to kill him and that he was afraid for his safety. The Claimant denies that this was true, and says that Jack Neary fabricated his evidence to the police. Following his release from custody the Claimant was prosecuted for using threatening/abusive/insulting words/behaviour with intent to cause fear/provoke unlawful violence.

The Claimant says that the police investigated the claim against him for 5 months, and that the prosecution concluded on 17 June when the Crown Prosecution service offered no evidence. The Claimant alleges that the case was closed earlier but that the Police reopened the claim against him when he sent an email to the investigating officer asking for disclosure of the CCTV footage from the train and the recorded footage from the train Inspector's body camera, when he was charged with a lesser offence under the Public Order Act 1986.

Procedural History

The Claim Form was issued on 10 May 2024 and contains brief details of claim listing 14 separate allegations. The value of the claim was stated to be £3.5 million.

On 16 May 2024 Master Thornett made an order (sealed on 20 May 2024) (“the order of 16 May 2024”), imposing a stay on the claim and requiring the Claimant to issue a Part 23 application supported by a fully completed N244 for permission to lift the stay, within 14 days of the date the order was sealed. It was stated that such application should be supported by a single document entitled Draft Particulars of Claim which should set out;

“2.1 the factual and legal basis for each and every claim against each named Defendant;

2.2 Identifying such loss and damage claimed against each Defendant the causal basis on which such loss and damage is claimed and the basis on which each head of loss and/or damage is calculated.”

The Claimant filed and served on the First, Second and Third Defendants a document entitled Particulars of Claim dated 28 May 2024 (i.e. not a draft Particulars of Claim as ordered), on which his name was typed but no statement of truth was included. A schedule of past and future losses and expenses dated the same day was also served and filed signed by the Claimant but also did not include a statement of truth. The Schedule of Loss claimed losses of £3,521,096.45.

On 1 August 2024 Master Thornett determined the Claimant's application dated 28 May 2024 without a hearing and lifted the stay imposed by the order of 16 May 2024. It was stated in the order: “ And further upon the court deciding only whether the claim should be permitted to proceed but expressing no view or conclusion as to its merits.”

It is accepted by the Claimant that he has not served the Fourth and Fifth Defendants, and they have played no part in the litigation to date. In any event the Fourth Defendant is not properly identified. The time for service of the Claim Form and Statement of Case has expired. Accordingly, for convenience, where this judgment refers to “the Defendants” it refers only to the First, Second and Third Defendants.

The Claim

The Claim Form sets out the following brief details of claim, (in part my summary):

(i) Wrongful arrest

(ii) False imprisonment

(iii) Assault

(iv) Excessive use of force

(v) False accusation of trying to kill another under s 16 OAPA 1861 and s. 4 Public Order Act

(vi) Breach of the Claimant's human rights

(vii) Data Protection Breach

(viii) Malicious prosecution

(ix) Smear campaign

(x) Misfeasance in public office

(xi) Wrongly putting personal information into the public domain

(xii) Seeks to remove fingerprints, photo and DNA from the Defendants; systems

(xiii) Complaint that the Defendants have unlawfully banned the Claimant from using public trains from Paddington for 5 months

(xiv) Seeks an injunction for disclosure of CCTV and camera footage

The Applications

The applications to strike out the claims are made pursuant to CPR rule 3.4(2), which sets out three grounds on which a court may strike out a case, namely if it appears to the court:

(a) that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim; or

(b) that the statement of case is an abuse of the courts process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings; or

(c) that there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practise direction or court order.

Rule 3.3 (4) also provides that where the court strikes out a statement of case it may make any consequential order it considers appropriate.

The Defendants' applications for summary judgment are made under CPR r. 24.3.

The Claimant's application for summary judgment and for trial directions will not succeed if the Defendants' applications succeed, so I deal with the Defendants' applications first.

The Application of the First Defendant

The First Defendant's application is made under CPR rule 3.4(2) (a) and (c) and rule 24.3. I summarise the grounds on which the application is made as follows:

(i) The claim against the First Defendant is incoherent and fails to set out on what legal or factual basis the First Defendant is liable to the Claimant. The First Defendant relies on CPR PD3A para. 4.4, and Paragraph (iv) of Master Thornett's order dated 16 May 2024.

(ii) The Claimant has listed various causes of action without explaining how each of these is said to arise against the First Defendant.

(iii) The Particulars of Claim do not adequately set out any cause of action against the First Defendant, in breach of CPR 16.2(1)(a) and 16(4) (a). This was also identified at paragraphs (i) and (v) of the order of 16 May 2024. The First Defendant therefore cannot fairly respond to the claim.

(iv) Neither the Particulars of Claim nor the Schedule of Loss have a CPR compliant statement of truth, in breach of CPR 22.1 (1) (a) and CPR PD16 para. 3.2.

The First Defendant also relies on the above factors as grounds for its summary judgment application, in addition it relies on the fanciful and farfetched nature of the claim, in particular the conspiracy allegations, as demonstrating that the claim has no real prospect of success.

The Application of the Second Defendant

The Second Defendant echoes and endorses the grounds relied on by the First Defendant in respect of its applications.

The Application of the...