Hare v Leeds City Council & Anor

Permission to appeal against a strike-out order should be refused where the statement of case, taken with any proper explanation offered by the claimant, has no real factual basis and gives no real prospect of success. The court should examine an unrepresented claimant’s case carefully and take account of the absence of legal advice. Strong belief in allegations, without supporting facts, is insufficient to establish reasonable grounds for bringing a claim or a prospect of successfully challenging its strike-out.

The claimant issued proceedings against a local authority and a police force, alleging that they were damaging her businesses, disrupting her livelihood and injuring her health. She alleged a conspiracy connected with the redevelopment of Pudsey and referred to Protocol 1, Article 1 and Article 8. The defendants contended that the claim was embarrassing and should be struck out under CPR 3.4.

After a case management conference and a further hearing, the deputy High Court judge struck out the claim, holding that it disclosed no reasonable grounds, had no factual basis and had no prospect of success. The claimant, acting in person, sought permission to appeal. The central issue was whether there was any real prospect of setting aside that order.

Application refused. Lord Justice Thomas held that the claimant had no real prospect of successfully setting aside the strike-out order.

1. The lower court had made careful efforts to understand the claim. The statement of case remained unclear and disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing it. It also lacked a factual basis capable of supporting the allegations.
2. The Court of Appeal considered both the documents and the claimant’s oral amplification of her case. It took full account of her strong belief in the allegations, the effect which the dispute had had on her health, and the fact that she was a litigant in person who had been unable to obtain legal advice.
3. The court recognised the need to examine with care whether an unrepresented claimant had some genuine factual or other basis for a claim. If such a basis had existed, the alleged conduct might have raised serious human-rights concerns. That possibility did not supply the missing facts, however, and firmly held beliefs were insufficient on their own.
4. Since the claim had no real factual foundation and no real prospect of success, permission to appeal was refused. The operative order was: application refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division). On 4 March 2005, Lord Justice Thomas refused the claimant permission to appeal.
2. High Court, Queen’s Bench Division (Leeds District Registry). His Honour Judge Grenfell, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, struck out the claim on 12 October 2004.