Hiseman v Arab Investment Syndicate Ltd

Summary judgment under Part 24 may be used where a claim has no real prospect of success or constitutes an abuse of process, provided the procedure is appropriate to the case. Its use does not of itself breach Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. A very late, wholly new allegation may properly be viewed with scepticism, particularly where the claimant has had ample opportunity to produce supporting material and the allegation conflicts with the contemporaneous evidence and inherent probabilities.

Mr Stephen Hiseman and Arab Investment Syndicate Ltd brought proceedings against a firm of solicitors, alleging breaches of contract and duty concerning company restoration, earlier litigation, property ownership and alteration of a mortgage deed. Sullivan J dismissed the claim with indemnity costs after directing that fully particularised particulars of claim be served. He concluded that the claim was bound to fail and was in some respects an abuse of process.

Mr Hiseman sought permission to appeal and an extension of time. The application was considered on the papers because neither side attended. The central issues were whether Sullivan J had erred in granting summary judgment and whether use of Part 24 was compatible with Article 6.

1. Application refused. There was no reasonable prospect of persuading the full court that Sullivan J had erred in exercising his discretion to grant summary judgment. The proposed appeal was hopeless.
2. The principal allegation, that the solicitor had been instructed to acquire the Sussex property for AIS (UK) rather than AIS (Cayman), was a wholly new allegation advanced about 15 years after the conveyance. It had not been properly raised in the writ or earlier proceedings. Its late emergence, the claimant’s own evidence, the lack of contemporaneous documents, inherent probabilities, and limitation difficulties justified scepticism about its prospects.
3. The court was entitled to consider the earlier proceedings concerning the beneficial ownership of the property and the subsequent attempts to relitigate that issue. The claim was properly treated as having no real prospect of success and, in some respects, as an abuse of process.
4. The use of summary procedure under Part 24 in an appropriate case did not violate Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court relied on S v Gloucester County Council [2001] 2 WLR 909 and the authorities discussed there.
5. The application for an extension of time did not require determination because permission to appeal was refused.

• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division: Sullivan J dismissed the claim on 31 March 2000, entered judgment for the solicitors and awarded indemnity costs, subject to permission being required for enforcement during the period when Mr Hiseman was legally aided.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal was refused. The application for an extension of time was not considered.