Court finds no misuse of process where pleadings reflected client instructions and legal judgment
The High Court has rejected an application alleging that claimant solicitors acted abusively in pursuing data breach claims, finding that the preparation and wording of pleadings fell within the ordinary scope of professional legal judgment.
In Capita plc v Various Claimants Master Dagnall declined to strike out claims brought by individuals affected by a cyber incident in which personal and financial data was compromised. The defendant argued that aspects of the claimants’ case had been presented in exaggerated terms and that the approach taken by the legal team amounted to an abuse of the court’s process.
The court rejected that argument, emphasising that pleadings are drafted by lawyers and are not expected to mirror clients’ language or personal descriptions precisely. The judge held that counsel is entitled to frame claims in legally appropriate terms provided that the factual basis derives from client instructions. There was no evidence that facts had been improperly invented or advanced without foundation.
Master Dagnall stressed that the legal threshold for abuse of process is deliberately high. Litigation that is ambitious, strongly expressed or later subject to amendment does not, without more, constitute misuse of the court’s procedures. The judgment makes clear that criticism of drafting or litigation strategy is insufficient unless it can be shown that the process itself has been improperly deployed.
The court also noted that claimants had reviewed and approved the claim documentation before proceedings were issued. That approval supported the conclusion that the pleadings reflected genuine instructions, even where legal language had been used to describe distress or emotional impact following the data breach.
While dismissing the abuse allegation, the judge observed that certain terminology used in the pleadings could give rise to ambiguity and might benefit from clarification as the case progresses. Those concerns, however, were matters of case management rather than grounds for striking out the claims.
Importantly, the court underlined that the ruling should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the underlying merits of individual claims. The particulars of claim, verified by statements of truth, are not evidence and remain subject to proof at trial. The decision addressed only whether the manner in which the claims were advanced crossed the threshold into procedural abuse.
The judgment also contains broader observations on the conduct of large-scale litigation, including concern that disputes about pleading and process risk diverting attention from the substantive issues in data breach claims. The court indicated that proportionality and efficient case management remain central considerations where significant numbers of claimants are involved.
The ruling is likely to be welcomed by practitioners acting in group and data breach litigation, as it reinforces the court’s cautious approach to abuse allegations directed at legal representatives. It confirms that the courts will be slow to characterise contentious or assertive pleading as abusive in the absence of clear evidence that the litigation process itself has been misused.
For claimant and defendant lawyers alike, the decision serves as a reminder that disputes over drafting should ordinarily be resolved through amendment and case management rather than satellite applications alleging abuse of process.