MB v RBG

A default judgment must be set aside where, when it was entered, an acknowledgment of service had been filed, even if filing occurred out of time. A claim may be struck out as an abuse of process where it is incoherent, inadequately particularised, discloses no reasonable grounds and cannot be fairly tried. Permission is required before committal proceedings for an alleged false statement may proceed. Such permission requires a strong prima facie case, a public interest in proceedings and a proper applicant. An extended civil restraint order may be made where a party has persistently issued claims or applications certified as totally without merit.

The claimant brought an unparticularised claim against a local authority, seeking £10.5 million and alleging bullying, negligence, racism, falsehood and other misconduct. The defendant’s acknowledgment of service was sent by DX on the final day but received one day late. A default judgment was nevertheless entered after the acknowledgment had been received.

The defendant applied to set aside the judgment, strike out the claim and obtain a civil restraint order. The claimant applied to add parties, commence contempt proceedings and obtain a freezing injunction. The court considered whether the default judgment should be set aside, whether the claim and applications were abusive or totally without merit, and whether an extended civil restraint order was justified.

1. Default judgment. Filing an acknowledgment of service means delivering it to the court office. The acknowledgment was filed late because it was received one day after the deadline. However, under CPR 12.3, the conditions for default judgment were not satisfied because an acknowledgment had been filed by the date judgment was entered. Under CPR 13.2, the court therefore had no discretion and had to set aside the judgment. The defendant also had a real prospect of successfully defending the claim under CPR 13.3.
2. Strike out. The claim disclosed no reasonable grounds under CPR 3.4(2). It was incoherent, grossly inflated, inadequately particularised and disclosed no recognisable cause of action. The later attempt to add extensive particulars was itself abusive. A fair trial was impossible because the defendant could not understand the case it had to meet. The claim was struck out, judgment was entered for the defendant and the claim was certified as totally without merit.
3. Contempt application. Permission was required under CPR 81.18. Applying KJM Superbikes Ltd v Hinton [2008] EWCA Civ 1280, permission should be granted only with great caution where there is a strong prima facie case, a public interest in committal proceedings, proportionality and a proper applicant. The alleged falsehood concerned an interpretation of procedural rules rather than a knowingly false fact. There was no strong prima facie case or public interest, and the claimant was not a proper person to bring the proceedings. Permission was refused and the application dismissed.
4. Freezing injunction. The claimant had no strong prima facie case and provided no evidence of any risk of dissipation. There was no legal basis for freezing the assets of the local authority’s staff. The application was dismissed and certified as totally without merit.
5. Civil restraint order. An extended order was justified under CPR 3.4(5), CPR 3.11 and Practice Direction 3C. Re Ludlem (A bankrupt) [2009] EWHC 2067 (Ch) established that three unmeritorious claims or applications were the minimum evidence of persistence. Sartipy and Tigris Industries Inc. [2019] EWCA Civ 225 required an evaluation of the party’s overall conduct. Eight claims or applications had been certified as totally without merit, including six within a few months. An extended civil restraint order was imposed for two years, preventing further claims or applications in the High Court or County Court without permission from a High Court judge.

Not stated in the judgment.