Thompson v Starr & Ors

A claim may be struck out where the claimant’s conduct of the litigation is seriously improper and the claim has no realistic prospect of success. Deliberate procedural non-compliance, misleading explanations for failing to attend hearings and a fanciful prospect of success may, cumulatively, justify striking out, even allowing for the claimant’s status as a litigant in person. The court may summarily assess the defendants’ costs where the sums claimed are appropriate.

The claimant brought proceedings concerning his suspension from office within, and de-selection from, the British Kendo Association team. Various interim applications and procedural hearings followed. The claim was stayed pending internal appeals under the Association’s constitution, but the claimant continued to pursue applications and failed to comply with procedural requirements. He failed to attend hearings before Eady J and Sweeney J, giving explanations which were later found to be misleading. The issue was whether the claim should be struck out and what costs order should follow.

1. The claim was struck out with costs. The court considered the claimant’s conduct in its overall context, making full allowance for his status as a litigant in person.
2. The claimant had conducted the litigation by deliberately sailing close to, and at times beyond, the limits of proper procedure. His explanations for non-attendance at the relevant hearings were misleading. Those matters were confirmed, in relation to the later hearing, by information obtained from the solicitor whom the claimant claimed to have instructed.
3. Following the written ruling of the National Committee Appeals Committee, the claimant’s prospects of success at trial were, at best, fanciful. The combination of that lack of prospects and the claimant’s procedural conduct justified striking out the claim.
4. The defendants’ costs relating to the hearings before Eady J and Sweeney J were summarily assessed at £7,174.10 and £2,787.60 respectively, totalling £9,961.70.

The judgment records that the claimant’s appeal against an earlier order of His Honour Judge Seymour QC was dismissed by Deputy Master Meacher on 23 November 2012. The present judgment concerned the subsequent decision to strike out the claim and assess costs.