Jean Lloyd v His Honour Judge North & Ors

Proceedings are an abuse of process where they seek to re-litigate issues already determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, even when framed as a different claim or remedy. A party cannot use a compensation claim to challenge indirectly a possession order and subsequent refusal of permission to appeal. Decisions which have concluded the dispute remain binding unless set aside through a procedurally proper route. The court considering renewed permission cannot reopen the correctness of earlier decisions outside its jurisdiction.

The claimant formerly occupied an almshouse under a licence. After the trustees obtained a possession order on appeal, she unsuccessfully sought permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. She later issued proceedings seeking compensation for her eviction and alleged that the judges and other defendants had acted unlawfully and irrationally.

Master Gidden struck out the claim under CPR rule 3.4(2)(a) and (b), holding that it disclosed no reasonable grounds and was an abuse of process. Hill J refused permission to appeal. The claimant renewed that application before the High Court.

1. Application refused. The renewed application for permission to appeal was dismissed.
2. The claim was plainly and obviously an abuse of process. In general, a party cannot re-litigate matters already decided against them by a court of competent jurisdiction. Otherwise litigation would have no finality.
3. The claimant’s compensation claim was, in substance, an attempt to re-argue the correctness of the possession order and the refusal of permission to appeal. Recasting the dispute as a claim for compensation did not avoid the abuse.
4. The possession order and the refusal of permission to appeal were decisions which stood and concluded the matter against the claimant. The judge hearing the renewed application did not have power to determine whether those earlier decisions were right or wrong.
5. The claimant’s assertion that the possession order was made because she had brought a justified claim was factually incorrect. The appeal judge had relied on a proper evidential basis, apart from the civil claim, for concluding that the claimant had behaved offensively or vexatiously.
6. The court said nothing about judicial immunity because that issue had not formed part of Hill J’s reasons and the claimant was unrepresented.

• High Court (King's Bench Division): renewed application for permission to appeal refused.
• High Court: Hill J refused permission to appeal the Master’s strike-out order.
• Master Gidden: struck out the proposed claim under CPR rule 3.4(2)(a) and (b).
• County Court: His Honour Judge North allowed the trustees’ appeal and made a possession order.
• Court of Appeal: Arnold LJ refused permission for a second appeal under CPR rule 52.7.