Senna v Henderson & Ors

The court may determine interim and case-management applications remotely where the parties have reasonable means to participate and the arrangements are effective. A party seeking to restrain an opponent’s chosen solicitors must identify a coherent legal basis and establish the ordinary requirements for injunctive relief. A board resolution is not required merely to authorise solicitors or counsel to act for a company, and CPR r 39.6 applies only to representation by an employee at trial. Applications for a stay require a live procedural basis; concluded investigations or dismissed committal applications do not ordinarily justify one. Communications with represented parties should generally proceed through their solicitors.

The claimant brought two sets of proceedings concerning alleged contractual, tortious and other wrongdoing arising from his relationship with the third defendant and her subsequent dealings with other defendants. He made numerous applications, including applications to restrain the fourth defendant solicitors from acting, to stay the proceedings pending criminal or contempt proceedings, to communicate directly with represented defendants, to obtain jurisdiction and service declarations, and to impose various measures against the third defendant.

The applications were heard remotely after the claimant declined to participate, despite notice and facilities to join by telephone. The central issues were whether the solicitors were authorised to act, whether any stay or injunction was justified, and whether the claimant was entitled to the procedural and protective orders sought.

1. Disposition. All the claimant’s applications were dismissed. They were certified as totally without merit.
2. Representation and injunction. The application to restrain the fourth defendant from acting was misconceived. The claimant identified no coherent legal basis or legal right to deprive the first, second and fifth defendants of their chosen representation. Applying the American Cyanamid approach, there was no serious issue to be tried. The evidence also established that the solicitors were authorised to act, and that the second defendant had subsequently ratified their conduct.
3. Company authority. The court rejected the submission that a board resolution had to be produced authorising solicitors or counsel to act for a company. CPR r 39.6 concerns representation by an employee at trial. It did not govern the non-trial injunction hearing. The former requirements in PD 39A no longer applied.
4. Stay. No stay was justified. The police investigation had ended without further action, and there were no extant contempt applications before the court. The claimant had not challenged the earlier dismissal of committal applications or the directions governing any future application.
5. Communications and procedural declarations. The claimant was required to comply with the existing order directing communications with the represented defendants through their solicitors. There was no justiciable jurisdiction issue requiring determination at this stage; any live service or default-judgment issues could be addressed at the later listed hearing.
6. Applications against the third defendant. There was no legal basis to compel her return to the United Kingdom, require personal attendance, or order examination of her assets. Existing case-management directions permitting remote attendance and protective measures were within the court’s powers. The proposed injunction concerning the claimant’s database was unsupported by the disputed agreements.

This was a first-instance decision on multiple interlocutory and case-management applications. The judgment records earlier orders and interim decisions by other High Court judges, but no appeal from a lower-court judgment.