Gopee & Ors, Re

Where litigation raises apparently serious illegality and potentially grave consequences, the court may require affected defendants to have a proper opportunity to challenge judgments, particularly where the claimant may not have given a candid account when obtaining judgment. Repetitive attempts to advance arguments already rejected by the courts or tribunals may amount to an abuse of process. A claim against the Ministry of Justice based on alleged judicial bias or shortcomings is properly pursued by appeal and may be refused as an obvious abuse. A proposed claimant seeking to litigate must first show an arguable title where serious doubts arise from earlier transactions or statutory illegality.

This was a first-instance case-management judgment concerning a large group of related proceedings involving Mr Gopee and companies associated with him. The court addressed the transfer of most cases to the Central London County Court, applications to bring further proceedings against the Ministry of Justice and HM Land Registry, proposed litigation concerning property titles, and an intended defence before the First-tier Tribunal.

The judgment also recorded the continuing disputes concerning the liquidation of Barons Finance Ltd, earlier decisions in the related litigation, and a Court of Appeal refusal of permission to appeal in Ghana Commercial Finance Ltd v Sawyer. The central issues were whether further proceedings or defences should be permitted and how the related cases should be managed.

1. Case management. Most of the related cases were to be transferred to the Central London County Court, while the High Court retained supervision of existing orders and matters requiring High Court jurisdiction. Trials involving Mr Gopee as a witness were to be heard by another judge because of his repeated allegations of bias and the need to avoid disputes about the judge’s assessment of his evidence.
2. Applications against the Ministry of Justice. A claim alleging that the Ministry was vicariously liable for the judge’s acts and omissions was bound to fail. Criticism of judicial decisions and allegations of bias had to be pursued through the appellate route. The proposed claim was therefore treated as an abuse of process, and the draft pleading was required to remove the Ministry and allegations properly belonging before an appeal court.
3. Arguable title. A proposed claimant seeking to litigate over properties had to provide evidence showing an arguable valid title. This requirement reflected serious doubts about transfers involving a company in liquidation and titles obtained following alleged defaults on loans made in breach of relevant legislation.
4. Repeated defences. It would be an abuse of process to permit Mr Gopee to advance before the First-tier Tribunal grounds which had repeatedly failed before the County Court, High Court, Court of Appeal, or other relevant tribunal, where those grounds had no realistic prospect of success and would cause delay, inconvenience and a risk of inconsistent decisions.
5. General approach. Each case required examination on its merits. Nevertheless, where the loans appeared seriously unlawful and the claimant appeared generally to have failed to give the court a candid account when obtaining judgment, permission would usually be given for judgment to be set aside unless the defendant had consistently received informed representation or had competently represented himself or herself. The court remained willing to consider genuinely new reasons why the loans might be lawful and enforceable.

This was a first-instance judgment. It records that the Court of Appeal, in a reasoned judgment by Lord Justice Christopher Clarke, refused permission to appeal against a related decision in Ghana Commercial Finance Ltd v Sawyer.