Seer Technologies Inc & Ors v Abbas

A serious financial or personal consequence of a strike-out order does not, by itself, make the decision unfair or contrary to Convention rights. A party must comply with court orders, even where the opposing party is alleged to have failed to comply with its own obligations. On an appeal from a discretionary case-management decision, disagreement with the judge’s conclusion is insufficient. Permission requires a real prospect of showing that the discretion was exercised on an improper basis, including by taking irrelevant matters into account or failing to consider relevant matters. An allegation of judicial bias must be established objectively from the evidence and conduct, not inferred merely because the decision is adverse.

The Court of Appeal considered an adjourned application by Mr Abbas for permission to appeal against an order made by Mr Justice Jacob in the Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) on 24 July 2001.

The underlying proceedings concerned claims arising from a freezing order and Mr Abbas’s dismissal. At the damages inquiry, an earlier order required him to provide disclosure and witness statements. An unless order followed, providing that his claims would be struck out if he failed to comply. The High Court later struck out and dismissed the claims, subject to judgment for admitted sums totalling £135,350.39.

Mr Abbas alleged judicial bias, failure to give proper weight to his ill-health, unfair treatment concerning disclosure and settlement, and breaches of Convention rights. The central questions were whether the judge’s conduct demonstrated bias and whether there was a real prospect of showing that the strike-out discretion had been wrongly exercised.

Lord Justice Chadwick refused permission to appeal.

1. The alleged consequences of the order, including serious effects on Mr Abbas’s finances and livelihood, did not themselves establish unfairness or incompatibility with Convention rights. If the strike-out order was properly made under the rules, those consequences provided no independent basis for appellate intervention.
2. The transcript and surrounding circumstances did not disclose actual or apparent bias. The judge was entitled to assess whether the medical evidence showed an inability to comply with disclosure and witness-statement obligations. The order did not require Mr Abbas to attend court, and the judge’s assessment of his condition was directed to his ability to perform the required tasks. A conclusion adverse to a party is not, without more, evidence of bias.
3. The judge was entitled to control interruptions during the hearing and to require Mrs Abbas to leave if the hearing could not otherwise proceed. Any disagreement with the judge’s conclusions about the document list or the adequacy of Mr Abbas’s efforts concerned the correctness of the decision, not impartiality.
4. A party must comply with an order made against it. An alleged failure by the opposing party to provide discovery does not justify non-compliance. The proper course is to seek specific discovery and an appropriate remedy. Mr Abbas was also entitled to reject a settlement offer, but there was no indication that the judge penalised him for doing so.
5. The order was discretionary. The judge had addressed the relevant matters and had not relied on irrelevant matters. Mr Abbas therefore had no real prospect of showing that the conclusion that he was unwilling or unable to progress the claim to trial was one which the judge was not entitled to reach. The application for permission was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Lord Justice Chadwick refused permission to appeal on 20 December 2001.
• Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court): Mr Justice Jacob struck out and dismissed Mr Abbas’s claims on 24 July 2001, subject to judgment for admitted sums totalling £135,350.39.