Gloria Lewis v "The West Brom"

A High Court claim may be struck out where it discloses no recognisable cause of action or is used as an abusive collateral attack on concluded County Court possession proceedings. Part 8 cannot be used to advance unintelligible assertions, rhetorical questions or legally non-existent concepts in an attempt to undo mortgage enforcement or obtain relief unsupported by an identifiable legal or factual basis. The court may strike out such proceedings of its own motion where the defects are plain. The apparent use of High Court proceedings to delay or confuse possession proceedings elsewhere is itself capable of constituting an abuse of process.

The judgment concerned seven highly similar High Court Part 8 claims brought by mortgagors against mortgage lenders, including Gloria Lewis’s claim against The West Brom. The claims asserted, in broadly similar language, that mortgage debts had been settled through affidavits, notices or instruments, and sought orders compelling lenders to pay money or otherwise undo the consequences of County Court possession proceedings.

Some claims had been stayed because their legal and factual bases were unintelligible. One defendant applied to strike out, while the other claims were restored for a combined hearing. No claimant attended. The central issues were whether the claims disclosed any reasonable grounds, whether they constituted abuse of process, and whether the claimants should pay the defendants’ costs.

1. Disposition. All the claims, including Lewis’s claim, were struck out at the hearing. The proceedings were plainly legally erroneous, disclosed no recognisable cause of action and were untenable.
2. Strike-out jurisdiction. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 3.4, the court may strike out a statement of case where it discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim or is an abuse of the court’s process or otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of proceedings. The jurisdiction may be exercised on application or of the court’s own motion.
3. Application to the claims. The assertions that mortgage debts had been discharged by un rebutted affidavits, instruments or notices did not identify a legally intelligible cause of action. The rhetorical form of the pleadings did not cure their lack of substance. There was no plausible basis for denying the lenders’ entitlement to enforce their securities.
4. Abuse of process. The claims were used, or appeared intended to be used, as collateral attacks on concluded County Court possession decisions. Their apparent purpose was to delay or confuse enforcement proceedings by referring to High Court proceedings without presenting their true procedural status. That conduct constituted an abuse of process.
5. Costs and wider context. The court regarded the combined hearing and written judgment as necessary to prevent misunderstanding in other proceedings, but emphasised that the time and expense incurred did not give the claims residual credibility. The defendants’ costs were liable to increase the claimants’ mortgage or loan liabilities.

The judgment was a first-instance decision. It records earlier County Court mortgage possession proceedings and related enforcement applications involving the claimants. The High Court claims were not appeals from those decisions; they were treated as collateral attacks upon them.