Ameyaw v McGoldrick & Ors

An application served less than the period required by the procedural rules may be heard only if the court directs that sufficient notice was given in the circumstances. Relevant considerations include the brevity of the notice, the applicant’s reasons for delay and any prejudice to the respondent.

Public judgments may be placed before the court where they are relevant to issues in the claim, including a claim arising from related proceedings. A pending appeal does not, without more, make such material inadmissible.

A McKenzie friend may assist an unrepresented litigant but has no automatic right to address the court. A right of audience should be granted only for good reason and in special or very exceptional circumstances.

The claimant brought proceedings including claims for libel, malicious falsehood, breach of confidence and misuse of private information. The defendants applied for determination of preliminary issues, strike-out and summary judgment.

Before that application was heard, the claimant sought an interim injunction concerning medical information, challenged documents in the hearing bundle, and sought permission for her McKenzie friend to make oral submissions. The central questions were whether the interim application had been served with sufficient notice, whether the challenged judgments were relevant and admissible, and whether the McKenzie friend should be given a right of audience.

1. Interim injunction. The application was served on the afternoon before the hearing. Under CPR 23.7(1), the ordinary requirement was at least three clear working days’ notice. Although CPR 23.7(4) permitted the court to direct that shorter notice was sufficient, that discretion was not exercised. The notice was extremely short, there was no good reason for the claimant’s lengthy delay, and she had known for months that the defendants’ application would be heard. The application was therefore refused.
2. Hearing bundle. The employment judgments were relevant to the defendants’ arguments on serious harm, estoppel or abuse, meaning, and the confidentiality claims. The fact that some judgments were subject to appeal did not prevent the defendants from relying on them as public judgments. The claimant’s objection to their inclusion was dismissed. The court directed that references to the Grewal judgment should be to the final approved copy in the claimant’s bundle.
3. McKenzie friend. The court applied the guidance in Practice Note (McKenzie Friends: Civil and Family Courts) [2010] 1 WLR 1881. A McKenzie friend may provide moral support, take notes, assist with papers and give quiet advice, but ordinarily may not make oral submissions. The court should be slow to grant a right of audience and should do so only where good reason and special or very exceptional circumstances exist. The claimant’s experience and ability to represent herself, together with the absence of any exceptional circumstance, did not justify granting that right.
4. Adjournment. After the claimant became unwell or appeared to become unwell and an ambulance was called, the hearing of the defendants’ application was adjourned for two days in the interests of justice. The claimant’s applications concerning the injunction, bundle and McKenzie friend were refused.