Hearne v Secretary of State & Ors

A litigant must identify a recognisable cause of action, support it with properly particularised pleadings and evidence, and present it through the procedures of the court. A claimant’s belief that he has been treated unfairly does not justify pursuing claims framed as a stream of consciousness. Where claims are inadequately pleaded, an unless order is made, and the claimant fails to comply, the resulting automatic strike-out may be affirmed. Repeated meritless claims, applications and appeals may justify an extended civil restraint order restricting further proceedings without prior permission. Refusal of permission to appeal is not itself appealable, subject only to any separately appealable civil restraint order.

The claimant brought five connected claims arising from his time as a postgraduate student at Imperial College and from related complaints procedures. The defendants included the Secretary of State for Education, the Visitor of Imperial College, Imperial College, members of its staff and the Office of the Independent Adjudicator.

Master Leslie made orders and judgments on 1 October 2007, 21 November 2007 and 29 January 2008. The claims were struck out in whole or in part, or stayed subject to compliance with an unless order. Four applications for permission to appeal had been refused on paper and were renewed orally. The claimant also sought permission to appeal the January order, a transcript at public expense and an extension of time to serve further particulars. The central issues were whether there was any arguable ground of appeal and whether further proceedings should be restrained.

1. Permission to appeal refused. The five applications or renewed applications disclosed no discernible ground of appeal. The appeals were wholly without merit, and Master Leslie’s orders were unimpeachable.
2. The claimant accepted that he had failed to comply with the unless order requiring amended particulars of claim. The claims therefore stood struck out automatically from 11 January 2008. Relief from sanctions had not been sought. The later order affirming the strike-out was properly made.
3. The claims against the Secretary of State, the Visitor and the Office of the Independent Adjudicator were properly struck out as misconceived or lacking any discernible cause of action. The court could not treat allegations of unfairness, fraud or mistreatment as a substitute for identifying a legal claim supported by proper pleadings and evidence.
4. A transcript of the Master’s January judgment was unnecessary to determine the application. The application for a transcript and the application for an extension of time to serve further particulars were refused.
5. In light of the claimant’s history of meritless proceedings, applications and appeals, the court imposed an extended civil restraint order for two years. Without prior permission from Master Leslie, the claimant was restrained from issuing further applications, appeals, processes or proceedings arising from his dispute with Imperial College against the existing defendants or other connected parties.
6. Applications under the order were to be dealt with on paper. A refusal of permission to appeal was not itself susceptible to further appeal. The civil restraint order itself could be appealed to the Court of Appeal, although permission was not granted.

Master Leslie’s orders and judgments of 1 October 2007, 21 November 2007 and 29 January 2008 struck out the five connected claims in whole or in part, or made them subject to an unless order. Four applications for permission to appeal were refused on paper.

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): permission to appeal was refused in all five matters. The applications for a transcript and an extension of time were also refused. An extended civil restraint order was imposed for two years.