High Court strikes out false imprisonment and data claims and refuses bid to expand proceedings
The High Court has struck out all remaining claims in proceedings brought by Christopher Ness, bringing an end to litigation that followed an earlier failed libel action arising from online publications and complaints to the police.
In Christopher Ness v Jennifer Miller and others [2026] EWHC 113 (KB), the court dismissed claims for false imprisonment and breach of data protection law and refused applications to amend the claim to add three further defendants and a new cause of action in conspiracy.
The case was heard in the Media and Communications List of the King’s Bench Division, with judgment handed down on 27 January 2026 by Mrs Justice Heather Williams DBE.
The claims arose from Mr Ness’s arrest by Surrey Police in March 2024 following a complaint made by Jennifer Miller. Mr Ness had alleged that his arrest and subsequent detention were procured by false information provided to the police and that this amounted to false imprisonment. He also pursued a data protection claim linked to emails sent to England Athletics and sought to add Michelle Sojka, Joanna Sojka and Lindsay Gauntlett as additional defendants.
The court held that the false imprisonment claim against Ms Miller disclosed no reasonable grounds. While accepting, for the purposes of the application, that the claimant’s case should be assessed on the basis most favourable to him, the judge found the pleading failed to allege facts capable of showing that Ms Miller went beyond merely providing information to police. There was no properly pleaded case that she directed, requested or encouraged the police to arrest Mr Ness, or that she procured the arrest within the meaning of established authority.
Mrs Justice Williams also rejected the claimant’s reliance on the seriousness of the allegations reported to the police as sufficient to show that officers were under a duty to arrest. The judgment emphasised that a complaint to police imposes a duty to investigate, not a duty to arrest, and that the pleaded case did not come close to meeting the threshold required.
The data protection claim against Ms Miller was also struck out. The court held that it was based on factual allegations already rejected in an earlier libel judgment and therefore disclosed no reasonable grounds and constituted an abuse of process. The claimant had not pleaded any viable alternative basis on which the claim could proceed.
The court refused permission to amend the claim to add new defendants or to introduce a claim for unlawful means conspiracy. The proposed conspiracy claim was found to be inadequately pleaded, lacking particulars of any agreement, concerted action or unlawful means. The judge also held that the evidence relied upon did not establish a realistic prospect of success.
Applications to add the proposed defendants to pursue false imprisonment and data protection claims were also refused. The court concluded that it was not desirable to expand the proceedings, particularly as all existing claims were being struck out and any remaining issues would be modest and unsuitable for continuation in the High Court.
As a result, the proceedings were struck out in their entirety. The court invited written submissions on consequential matters, including costs.