Clarke v Arc Legal Assistance Ltd & Ors

A claim may be struck out where its essential facts and causes of action are not pleaded in a coherent and intelligible way. A litigant in person may receive appropriate case-management allowances, but remains subject to the ordinary rules and standards of compliance. It is abusive to use ordinary proceedings to challenge decisions of public or regulatory bodies where judicial review is the appropriate procedure, particularly to circumvent its strict time limits. Strike out may be appropriate where the defects cannot realistically be cured by amendment and continuation would obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings.

The claimant brought a Part 8 claim against providers and managers of legal expenses insurance, legal and professional regulators, and ombudsman services. She alleged breach of contract, breach of confidentiality, fraud by false representation and infringement of article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The defendants applied to strike out the claim and, alternatively, for summary judgment. The claimant did not attend the hearing. The court permitted the hearing to proceed in her absence. The central issues were whether the claim disclosed reasonable grounds and whether it was an abuse of process.

1. Strike out. The claim was struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b). The particulars did not identify clearly the material facts relied upon, the contractual terms allegedly breached, or how the pleaded facts established the causes of action. The court was not required to reconstruct the claimant’s case from a vague pleading and a large bundle of documents.
2. Merits. The contractual allegations were inadequately particularised and, on the facts apparent from the materials, lacked a viable basis. The insurers were entitled to rely on the relevant legal opinions and to withdraw cover after the settlement offer was rejected and advice indicated that the claim no longer had the required prospects. No loss had been pleaded. The alleged confidentiality breach was based on speculation. The fraud allegation was unsupported by clear particulars or evidence of bad faith. Article 6 was not engaged because the complaints to the regulator did not concern the determination of civil rights or criminal charges.
3. Abuse of process. The claim amounted to an indiscriminate attack on adverse decisions and the claimant’s earlier employment dispute. Its presentation and accompanying response created a real risk of substantial and unrecoverable costs and made effective case management unrealistic. A challenge to the decisions of the regulators and ombudsman bodies had to be brought by judicial review; ordinary proceedings could not be used to avoid judicial-review time limits.
4. Amendment and other applications. Amendment was refused because no application or proposed pleading had been made, the claimant had already attempted to explain her case without making it legally intelligible, and there was no indication that a coherent amended claim would disclose reasonable grounds. The court therefore did not determine the Part 8 procedural issue or the summary-judgment application. No finding was made that the claim was totally without merit. Consequential matters, including costs, were left for agreement or written determination.