Piepenbrock v (proceedings against Ms D)

The court refused an extension of time to serve the Claim Form on the Ninth Defendant (HPN) and declared that it had no jurisdiction to determine the claims against her because the Claim Form had not been validly served and permission to serve out of the jurisdiction had not been obtained. The judge held that permission to serve out was required (CPR 6.33–6.37; Practice Direction 6B) and that the Claimant could not show a good arguable case or a serious issue to be tried against the Ninth Defendant: the pleaded causes of action were statute-barred, outside the territorial reach of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and/or precluded by earlier judgments (issue estoppel), and in any event bound to fail.

The court also dismissed the Claimant’s application to set aside the anonymity and reporting restrictions protecting the Ninth Defendant and continued the April 2022 anonymity order (pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and s.11 Contempt of Court Act 1981). The judge concluded that anonymity was necessary in the interests of justice given the Claimant’s continuing campaign to identify and vilify the Ninth Defendant, earlier judicial orders protecting her identity, and the risk of misuse of the court process. The claim against the Ninth Defendant and the extension application were certified as totally without merit.

Background and parties:

• The Claimant had earlier litigated against the LSE and there were published judgments in 2018 and 2020. The current claim, issued 7 October 2021, pleaded causes of action including negligence, harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, breaches of the Human Rights Act 1998 and data protection legislation. The Ninth Defendant (HPN) was a former graduate teaching assistant at the LSE residing in the United States.
• Relevant prior decisions include Nicola Davies J's judgment of 5 October 2018 ([2018] EWHC 2572 (QB)), Mr Justice Nicklin's 1 July 2020 judgment ([2020] EWHC 1708 (QB)) and an Employment Tribunal decision which later found against the Claimant on contested factual issues.

Nature of the applications before the court:

• (i) an application by the Claimant for an extension of time to serve the Claim Form on the Ninth Defendant and, if necessary, permission to serve out of the jurisdiction; (ii) an application by the Ninth Defendant for a declaration that the court lacked jurisdiction because of defective service; and (iii) an application by the Claimant to set aside the anonymity and related orders made by Nicklin J on 27 April 2022.

Issues framed by the court:

1. Whether court permission was required to serve the Claim Form on the Ninth Defendant outside the jurisdiction and, if so, whether permission should be granted under Practice Direction 6B para 3.1 and CPR 6.36–6.37.
2. Whether there was a serious issue to be tried against the Ninth Defendant such as to justify service out, including whether pleaded causes of action were within the territorial scope of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 or otherwise tenable.
3. Whether the anonymity and reporting restriction orders in favour of the Ninth Defendant should be set aside, having regard to the principle of open justice, the court’s common law powers, CPR 39.2(4), s.11 Contempt of Court Act 1981 and the facts of the parties’ conduct.

Court’s reasoning and conclusions:

• The Claim Form had not been validly served on the Ninth Defendant and the six‑month validity period had expired. The Claimant had not complied with the procedural requirements for service out (no CPR 6.34 notice, no application under CPR 6.36/6.37 properly particularising the PD 6B gateway relied upon and no adequate evidence demonstrating a good arguable case or a serious issue to be tried).
• The pleaded claims against the Ninth Defendant were hopeless for multiple independent reasons: limitation (statute-barred), lack of territorial effect for the PHA 1997, witness immunity in respect of an evidence-based witness statement, and issue estoppel based on earlier judicial findings (the 2018 High Court judgment and the Employment Tribunal’s findings). The judge therefore refused permission to serve out and refused the extension of time.
• On anonymity, the court applied the common law powers and CPR 39.2(4). The judge found a strong and continuing risk that the Claimant would use court documents and judgments to identify and vilify the Ninth Defendant, that earlier anonymity orders should not be undermined, and that the balance of interests (open justice versus protection of the party and administration of justice) justified maintaining the anonymity and reporting restrictions. The Set‑Aside Application was dismissed.
• The court certified that the claim against the Ninth Defendant and the application for extension of time were totally without merit.

The court dismissed the Claimant’s Extension of Time Application and refused permission to serve the Claim Form out of the jurisdiction, declaring that it had no jurisdiction to determine the claim against the Ninth Defendant because the Claim Form was not validly served and the substantive claims against her were bound to fail. The Set-Aside Application to revoke anonymity was dismissed and the April 2022 Anonymity Order was continued. The claims against the Ninth Defendant and the extension application were certified as totally without merit. The judge relied on CPR Parts 6 and 7, Practice Direction 6B, CPR 39.2(4), s.11 Contempt of Court Act 1981, issue estoppel arising from prior judgments, limitation, territorial scope of the PHA 1997 and witness immunity in reaching these conclusions.