Gayle-Childs v HM Treasury

The United Kingdom courts have no jurisdiction to determine the validity of an EU regulation or claims concerning the non-contractual liability of the European Union and its institutions where EU law confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Claims must disclose a recognisable cause of action. A claim for procuring breach of contract requires an identified contract and breach. A general civil restraint order may be made where a party persists in issuing claims or applications that are totally without merit and an extended order would be insufficient or inappropriate.

The claimant brought six claims against HM Treasury, the European Union, Ashton Global Investments Ltd, the Libyan Investment Authority, Antony Yallop, Harun Miah, Mohammed Hussein and the City of London Corporation.

The claims concerned EU sanctions listings, alleged loan and guarantee liabilities, purported admissions, and alleged fraud arising from a prior application notice. The court considered whether the claims should be struck out, whether judgment should be entered on the alleged admissions, and whether a further general civil restraint order should be imposed.

1. HM Treasury claim. The claim was struck out as totally without merit. The Targets List substantially reproduced the EU listing and therefore the substance of the claim challenged the validity of Council Regulation (EU) No 204/2011. The United Kingdom courts had no jurisdiction to determine that issue. The defamation allegations also appeared time-barred under section 4A of the Limitation Act 1980 and section 8 of the Defamation Act 2013, and the publication was subject to qualified privilege absent malice. The alleged tortious interference claim identified neither a relevant contract nor a breach.
2. European Union claim. The court declared that the courts of England and Wales lacked jurisdiction and struck out the claim as totally without merit. Under Articles 268 and 340(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Court of Justice of the European Union had exclusive jurisdiction over non-contractual liability of the Union and its institutions.
3. Other claims. Applications for judgment based on purported admissions by Paine Crow and Partners were adjourned because their authority to act was not established. The Yallop application was adjourned with directions for further evidence.
4. City of London Corporation claim. The claim was struck out as totally without merit. The Fraud Act 2006 dealt with crime and did not provide the pleaded civil cause of action. The claimant had also failed to identify a viable cause of action or explain the alleged loss.
5. Civil restraint order. A general CRO was imposed for the maximum period of two years under Practice Direction 3C.