Miller v Experience Hendrix LLC & Ors

A party cannot use fresh proceedings or an application to re-litigate causes of action or issues already decided, or matters which could and should have been raised earlier. A collateral attack on an earlier judgment is an abuse where re-litigation would be manifestly unfair or would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Article 6 does not confer an unlimited right to repeat arguments or require a trial in every case. A judgment procured by fraud may exceptionally be set aside on genuinely new evidence, but the challenge must be brought by a fresh claim and properly pleaded. An application which merely repackages rejected allegations, without credible particulars or relevant new evidence, may be struck out.

The claimant brought two related claims concerning judgments in earlier litigation about rights in recordings of Jimi Hendrix. Claims seeking to set aside an earlier judgment for fraud and alleging unlawful interference with business were summarily dismissed by HHJ Hodge QC on 16 July 2014: [2014] EWHC 2695 (Ch). Permission to appeal was refused.

The claimant then applied within those proceedings to set aside the Hodge Judgment itself, alleging that it had been obtained by fraud, that the judge had been biased, and that he had not allowed adequate time for the case. The defendants contended that the application was an abuse of process. The central issues were whether the allegations involved genuinely new evidence, whether the claimant could re-litigate matters already decided or which should previously have been raised, and whether the application was procedurally and substantively sustainable.

1. Fair hearing and limits on access to court. Article 6 ECHR and the common law require a fair opportunity to present a case, but those rights are subject to limitations necessary for the proper administration of justice. The court may impose time limits and restrain duplicative or abusive litigation. The claimant had had ample time to prepare and approximately five and a half hours to make submissions.
2. Res judicata and abuse. Causes of action and issues necessarily decided in earlier proceedings, together with matters which could reasonably and should in all the circumstances have been raised, cannot ordinarily be raised again. A collateral attack may also be abusive where re-litigation would be manifestly unfair or would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
3. Application to the Deed of Assignment. The allegations that the deed was forged or ineffective had already been advanced before Judge Hodge and rejected. The evidence relied upon was available earlier, and no significant new evidence had emerged. Repackaging the same allegations as an attack on the Hodge Judgment was barred by res judicata or issue estoppel and was an abuse of process.
4. Other arguments. Complaints about Judge Hodge’s alleged bias, the summary procedure, hearing time and refusal of a publicly funded transcript were matters for an appeal, not evidence that the judgment had been procured by fraud. The arguments based on the Sue Records Agreement and the alleged source of the recordings had either been available earlier or had already been rejected in the litigation against Mr Sutton. Re-running them would be an impermissible collateral attack and they were irrelevant to the alleged fraud concerning the deed.
5. Fraud and procedure. A judgment may be set aside where genuinely new evidence establishes that it was procured by fraud. The proper procedure is a fresh claim, not an application notice. In any event, the claimant had failed to plead a coherent or particularised case of fraud against any defendant. The application was therefore struck out as barred, an impermissible collateral attack and a clear abuse of process.

The judgment records earlier proceedings and a refusal of permission to appeal, but no appeal from this judgment.