PLYMOUTH CITY COUNCIL v ABC

The claimant, a local authority, brought proceedings alleging that the defendant, a former employee in its special educational needs and disability department, downloaded personal data and confidential information otherwise than for the purpose of carrying out her duties and without consent. The defendant applied (a) for anonymity and (b) under CPR Part 11 for a declaration that the court had no jurisdiction or should not exercise any jurisdiction in the claim. The judge dismissed the renewed anonymity application on the ground that there had been no material change of circumstances or new evidence sufficient to justify relitigating the earlier refusal in light of authorities such as Chanel Ltd v FW Woolworth & Co Ltd, Woodhouse v Consignia plc and Tibbles v SIG plc, and he again refused anonymity.

On the Part 11 application the judge treated separately challenges to the existence of jurisdiction (for example, alleged defects in service, statements of truth and formal irregularities) and challenges to the exercise of jurisdiction (for example, alleged disproportionate conduct by the claimant, failure to make reasonable adjustments and alleged abuse of process). He held that service had been effectively effected, that the misstatements and formal defects identified caused no irremediable prejudice, and that any procedural errors were curable under CPR rule 3.10. He also held that arguments about merits and proportionality were not appropriately dealt with under Part 11 and that the court should not decline to exercise jurisdiction. The application under CPR Part 11 was therefore dismissed and case management directions were given.

Background and procedural posture:

• The claim, issued 11 June 2022, alleged unlawful downloading of personal and confidential data by the defendant shortly before redundancy. The claimant previously obtained a without-notice injunction disposed of on undertakings.
• The defendant issued two principal applications: (1) successive applications for an anonymity order (initially refused on 14 March 2022); and (2) a Part 11 application dated 25 August 2021 seeking a declaration that the court had no jurisdiction or should not exercise jurisdiction.

Nature of relief sought:

• Anonymity: permanent and complete anonymisation of the defendant (renewed application after an earlier refusal).
• Jurisdiction: declaration under CPR Part 11 that the court had no jurisdiction or should decline to exercise any jurisdiction; consequential orders (setting aside claim form/service or staying proceedings) were sought.

Issues framed by the court:

1. Whether the defendant had shown material change of circumstances or newly discovered facts to justify revisiting the earlier anonymity refusal (having regard to authority discouraging repeated interlocutory applications).
2. Whether the court had territorial or in personam jurisdiction and, if so, whether it should decline to exercise that jurisdiction (distinguishing challenges to existence of jurisdiction from challenges to its exercise).
3. Whether alleged procedural defects (service irregularities, statements of truth, formal errors) or claimant conduct (failure to make reasonable adjustments, disproportionate measures) justified setting aside the claim or declining jurisdiction.

Court’s reasoning and conclusions:

• Anonymity: the renewed application failed because most material either pre-dated the earlier decision or could have been advanced then; the change to CPR rule 39.2(4) after the first decision did not retrospectively require rehearing; medical and other material relied on did not materially change the position. The renewed application was dismissed.
• Jurisdiction/exercise of jurisdiction: the court analysed CPR Part 11 and authorities distinguishing (i) lack of jurisdiction founded on defective service and (ii) discretionary non-exercise such as forum non conveniens. The judge found that the documents were posted and an envelope correctly delivered; any errors in the claim form address or drafting were either immaterial or curable; email service was with the defendant’s consent; signatures and statements of truth were either present or could be remedied; precedents relied on by the defendant where material non-receipt occurred were distinguishable.
• Allegations about failure to make reasonable adjustments and disproportionate conduct did not justify the court declining jurisdiction: reasonable adjustments are a court responsibility under PD 1A, and Part 11 is not the appropriate vehicle for testing the substantive merits or proportionality of the claim. Procedural defects identified did not render the proceedings incurably unfair and could be remedied under CPR rule 3.10. The Part 11 application was therefore dismissed.
• Case management: the judge ordered exchange of written submissions on consequential orders and case management directions, suggested the parties consider settlement or mediation, and granted interim anonymisation of the defendant’s name in this judgment pending any permission to appeal.

The defendant’s renewed application for an anonymity order is dismissed because there has been no material change of circumstances or newly available evidence sufficient to justify a rehearing of that issue. The defendant’s application under CPR Part 11 challenging jurisdiction and seeking that the court decline to exercise jurisdiction is dismissed: the court has jurisdiction (service was effected or was not prejudicially defective), identified procedural errors were immaterial or curable (CPR r.3.10), and Part 11 is not an appropriate vehicle to determine merits or proportionality objections. The judge gave directions for further case management and left open interim anonymisation of the published judgment pending any appeal permission.