- Commissioner's alleged breach of duty of care claim to continue (James-Bowen v Commissioner of Police)
- Original news
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was this case about?
- Court of Appeal introductory remarks on the distinction between strike out and summary judgment
- How did the officers put their claims?
- Why was the retainer claim rejected?
- Why was the claim that the commissioner had breached his general duty of care arising at common law allowed to proceed?
- Why was the assumption of responsibility claim rejected?
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal against strike out of police officers’ claims against their commissioner for breach of his general duty of care to them at common law. Moore-Bick LJ did not, however, allow their appeal from the decision to strike out their claim based on an implied retainer. The judgment also provides a reminder of the distinction between applications to strike out under CPR 3 and applications for summary judgment under CPR 24.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial