Alexander v Prime Minister & Ors

Permission to appeal should be refused where the proposed appeal has no prospect of success and there is no compelling reason for appellate intervention. A claim may be struck out where it discloses no reasonable grounds, constitutes an abuse of process, or has no real prospect of success. Alleged governmental non-compliance with an implemented European directive should be challenged by judicial review, rather than private law proceedings for damages. An undischarged bankrupt lacks standing to pursue matters for which the trustee is responsible.

Mr Alexander sought permission to appeal against orders made by Crane J on 17 April 2000. His £4.8 million claim against fourteen defendants had been struck out under rule 3.4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, alternatively with summary judgment under Part 24.2.

The claim concerned earlier county court proceedings, taxation demands, his bankruptcy, alleged breaches of domestic and European law, and alleged non-compliance with European directives. The application also concerned his appeal from Master Trench’s order striking out the claim against the Commissioner of Inland Revenue and entering summary judgment for that defendant.

1. Applications dismissed. There was no compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to entertain the appeal. The claim had no prospect, still less a real prospect, of success.
2. Crane J had properly addressed the strike-out and summary judgment applications. The claim disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing it and was alternatively an abuse of the court’s process. Summary judgment was also justified because there was no real prospect of success.
3. The complaint that Crane J had exceeded an order adjourning the matter for directions was unarguable. It was a proper exercise of case management to determine the merits where the claimant had been given ample time to address the issues, avoiding unnecessary delay and costs.
4. Complaints concerning earlier county court proceedings, judicial review, tax recovery proceedings and bankruptcy had either already been dealt with or were subject to proper appeal routes. Those routes were exhausted or widely out of time. They could not be converted into a private law claim for damages.
5. Even if the claimant could establish that governmental departments had ignored an implemented European directive, the proper route was judicial review, for which leave was required. The court expressed no view that such a review would succeed.
6. The claimant was an undischarged bankrupt. Matters for which the trustee was responsible could not be pursued by him personally. He therefore lacked standing to bring the proceedings.
7. The repeated attempt to appeal Master Trench’s order raised no conceivable point of principle or practice. There was nothing requiring reference to Europe.

• High Court of Justice: Crane J made orders on 17 April 2000 striking out the claim against the relevant defendants under rule 3.4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, alternatively granting summary judgment under Part 24.2. The judge also dealt with the claimant’s appeal concerning Master Trench’s order.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Lord Justice Ward dismissed the applications for permission to appeal.