Gaskin v Norwich City Council & Ors

Claims must disclose a coherent and comprehensible case against each defendant. Where they do not, striking out is appropriate and permission to appeal may be refused. Claims for damages against the Information Commissioner under the Data Protection Act 1998 do not lie in the circumstances asserted where the statutory scheme provides no such cause of action. A general civil restraint order may be made where a litigant’s conduct, viewed in the context of repeated and meritless litigation, amply justifies that remedy.

The claimant renewed an application for permission to appeal against an order dismissing her application to set aside the striking out of 29 actions. Most actions concerned complaints about the Information Commissioner’s handling of personal-data matters; others alleged misuse of protected data against public authorities, religious bodies and private defendants.

She also applied to set aside a general civil restraint order made in her absence. The court considered whether the claims had disclosed an intelligible case and whether the restraint order was justified.

1. The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused. The 26 claims against the Information Commissioner were correctly struck out. On the circumstances asserted, no claim for damages lay against the Commissioner under the Data Protection Act 1998.

2. The remaining claims concerning alleged misuse of protected data contained no coherent or comprehensible statement of the case advanced against the defendants. The district judge was therefore right to strike them out, and permission to appeal was refused.

3. The claimant was entitled to apply to set aside the general civil restraint order because it had been made in her absence. Having considered the reasons set out by MacDuff J concerning her conduct as a litigant, the court held that the order was amply justified. The application to set it aside was dismissed.

• High Court (Queen's Bench Division): the renewed application for permission to appeal from the order of His Honour Judge Darroch dated 30 April 2012 was refused. The application to set aside the general civil restraint order was dismissed.
• Lower court: District Judge McLoughlin struck out 29 actions on 17 January 2012. His Honour Judge Darroch dismissed the application to set aside that order on 30 April 2012.