Samuel Collingwood Smith v Esther Ruth Baker

Litigants in person remain subject to the same procedural rules and court orders as represented parties. Lack of representation, illness or limited means may be relevant case-management circumstances, but does not by itself justify a lower standard of compliance.

Relief from sanctions requires assessment of the seriousness and significance of the breach, the reason for it, and all the circumstances of the case. Where pleadings remain seriously defective, the breach is substantial and prolonged, no good reason is established, and there is no realistic prospect of a sustainable pleading, strike-out and summary judgment may be just and proportionate.

The claimant’s original claims were settled, leaving the defendant’s counterclaim for defamation and harassment. Earlier orders required amended pleadings and a reply. The defendant repeatedly failed to comply with pleading requirements and did not serve a complete reply to the claimant’s defences.

The defendant sought relief from sanctions and further time. The claimant sought strike-out and reverse summary judgment. The issues were whether relief should be granted, whether the counterclaim disclosed reasonable grounds or was an abuse of process, and whether the defendant had any real prospect of success.

1. Relief from sanctions. The failure to serve a final and complete Amended Reply to Defence to Counterclaim was serious and significant. The proceedings could not progress efficiently because the issues remained undefined. Applying the three-stage approach in Denton v T H White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906, the court found against the defendant on seriousness and significance and on the absence of a good reason. The incomplete draft, lack of adequate medical evidence, prolonged default and lack of any realistic prospect of prompt compliance weighed heavily against relief.
2. All the circumstances also favoured enforcement. The overriding objective and Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 3.9, required efficient and proportionate litigation and compliance with rules and orders. The parties’ status as litigants in person did not excuse non-compliance. The application for relief and the request for further time were refused.
3. Strike-out and summary judgment. The counterclaim contained repeated passages previously struck out, impermissible amendments beyond the scope of the earlier order, vague allegations, and insufficient particulars. The incomplete reply did not engage with most of the publications or the claimant’s defences. The pleadings therefore failed to give the claimant fair notice of the case to be met.
4. Under rule 3.4(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, the statements of case disclosed no reasonable grounds, amounted to an abuse of process or were likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings, and failed to comply with rules, practice directions and the court’s order. Under rule 24, the defendant had no real prospect of success and there was no compelling reason for a trial. Strike-out was a last resort, but further opportunities would be futile and ending the proceedings was just and proportionate.
5. The Amended Counterclaim was struck out. Relief from sanctions and further time were refused, no further or alternative pleadings were permitted, and judgment was entered for the claimant on the counterclaim. The defendant was ordered to pay specified costs, assessed at £718.64, together with the remaining costs on the standard basis.