In Hale-Byrne v Secretary of State for Business and Trade & Anor [2025] EWHC 3205 (KB), the High Court dismissed, at an early stage, a wide-ranging claim alleging serious misconduct by senior government departments, including misfeasance in public office, breaches of the GDPR and violations of Articles 3, 8 and 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The claimant, Andrew Hale-Byrne, was a civil servant formerly employed by the Department for International Trade (now the Department for Business and Trade). His claim arose from events following the publication in July 2019 of leaked diplomatic cables attributed to Sir Kim Darroch, then British Ambassador to the United States.
Those leaks triggered significant political controversy and Sir Kim’s resignation. In October 2020, amid renewed media attention relating to allegations against Lord Darroch, the Claimant was arrested by the Metropolitan Police on suspicion of leaking classified diplomatic material. He was later dismissed from his civil service role on grounds of national security.
The Claimant instituted a range of proceedings including proceedings against the Defendants. Mr Justice Garnham summarised the Claimant’s case as follows:
“27. The Claimant avers that his arrest came about as a result of actions by certain named civil servants who, as it is put in his skeleton argument for this application, “falsely identified him to Police as a source of diplomatic telegrams” from Sir Kim “which had been leaked to Steven Edginton”. It is said that it was the publication of those telegrams in the Mail on Sunday on 6th July 2019 “which precipitated” Sir Kim’s resignation later that month.
- The Claimant avers that the “right of reply” letter served on Lord Darroch by The Sun on 12th October 2020 prompted civil servants in the two Defendant departments falsely to identify him to the Police as the source of the leak, causing a “raid on his house at 5am the next day”. He then alleges that those civil servants informed the Press of his arrest “in order to create a distraction from adverse reporting about the conduct of Lord Darroch”.
- It is alleged that those actions amounted to misfeasance in public office, breach of duty, breach of the articles of the Convention referred to above, misuse of private information and infringement of the Claimant’s right to privacy under the Convention…”
The Defendants applied for summary judgment against the Claimant. The legal principles to be applied by the court when assessing a summary judgment application were set out in the case of Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom Ltd [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch), as follows:
- The court must assess whether the claimant has a realistic (not fanciful) prospect of success;
- A realistic claim must have substance and carry some degree of conviction, not be merely arguable;
- The court must not conduct a mini-trial when deciding a summary judgment application;
- The court is not required to accept all factual assertions at face value, especially if they lack substance or are contradicted by documents;
- The court should consider both the evidence before it and evidence reasonably expected to be available at trial;
- The court should be cautious about deciding cases without a trial where fuller factual investigation could affect the outcome;
- Where the issue is a short point of law or construction and all relevant material is available, the court should decide it;
- Summary judgment should not be granted if evidence is likely to emerge at trial that could result in a real prospect of success; and
- Mere speculation that helpful evidence might appear before or at trial is insufficient to defeat a summary judgment application.
The claim ultimately failed on a fundamental evidential issue:
there was no evidence that civil servants in either Defendant department had informed the police that the Claimant was the source of the leaks.
The Claimant relied primarily on:
- His own belief that the departments must have identified him; and
- An SO15 police briefing note stating that UK security services had identified him as the source.
The Court found this insufficient. Crucially:
- Assertion by a Claimant (without direct knowledge) is not evidence: The Claimant had no direct knowledge of who identified him to the police and was essentially guessing as to whom it might have been;
- The SO15 document did not implicate the Defendant departments, nor did it identify any civil servants as the source of the information; and
- No claim had been pleaded against the Security Service, the Home Secretary or the Attorney General, despite the Claimant’s apparent reliance on intelligence-related involvement.
As the judge observed, if the alleged wrongdoing was committed by another body, the Claimant had sued the wrong Defendants and had not applied (even when prompted by the judge that he may want to do so), in time or at all, to correct that.
The Court also rejected the Claimant’s theories of motive:
- The arrest decision had been made before The Sun newspaper served its “right of reply” letter on Lord Darroch, undermining the suggestion that the Claimant’s arrest was orchestrated as a distraction;
- The Telegraph article reporting the arrest attributed pressure to prosecute to intelligence services, not to the Defendant departments; and
- There was no evidence that the Defendants had briefed the media or engaged in any “misinformation campaign” as alleged or at all.
Whilst the Court accepted that the Claimant’s claim that he was not the source of the leak was “weak but not fanciful”, that point alone could not sustain the claim in the absence of evidence tying the Defendants to the alleged misconduct.
Key Points
The principle lessons to be learnt from this case are:
1. Serious allegations require solid evidence.
Claims of bad faith, conspiracy or misfeasance against public authorities will not survive on inference alone.
2. Correct Defendant identification is critical
Where intelligence agencies may be involved, Claimants must plead their case accordingly and in time.
3. Summary judgment remains a powerful filter
Even complex, politically sensitive claims can and will be dismissed early where the evidential foundation is missing. That is not however to say that summary judgment is an easy thing to obtain. The courts will always be looking at such applications through the prism of a Claimant’s/Defendant’s fundamental human right of a right to a fair trial.
4. Given the intricacies of what is set out above, if you are contemplating making or in receipt of an application for summary judgment, it is essential to seek independent expert legal advice before proceeding
How can we help?
Kevin Modiri is a Partner in our expert Dispute Resolution team, specialising in civil disputes, insolvency, inheritance disputes, data breach claims and defamation claims.
If you’re facing a defamation issue or need advice about protecting your reputation, please do not hesitate to contact Kevin or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact us