Alison Meryl Johnson v Shaun Sawyer, Chief Constable Of Devon And Cornwall Police & Ors

A claim may be struck out where the pleaded documents do not identify recognisable causes of action, the defendant allegedly responsible for each cause, or the facts said to establish liability. Unstructured supporting material cannot substitute for proper particulars of claim. The civil court cannot overturn a criminal conviction or make findings that amount to a collateral attack on it.

Relief from sanction is governed by the three-stage Denton inquiry: the seriousness and significance of the breach, why it occurred, and all the circumstances, including the interests of justice and proportionality. Litigants in person remain subject to the CPR, although their circumstances may inform case management.

The claimant brought proceedings against five defendants seeking substantial compensation for alleged miscarriage of justice, unlawful conviction, consequential losses and related matters. The third defendant applied to strike out, but the court concluded that the claim form had never been validly served on the Crown and that the claim form had expired.

The fifth defendant sought relief from sanction for filing an acknowledgement of service late and permission to serve a defence. The first, second and fifth defendants applied to strike out the claim or obtain reverse summary judgment. The court therefore considered service on the Crown, relief from sanction, the adequacy of the pleaded case, abuse of process, procedural non-compliance and the effect of the claimant’s attempted challenge to her criminal conviction.

1. Third defendant. Under sections 17(3) and 18 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, proceedings against an appropriate Government department and documents connected with them had to be instituted and served through the specified Government legal representatives. Posting the papers to the manager of a local insolvency office did not constitute valid service, and the court had no power under the CPR to cure that failure. The claim form therefore expired without service. There was nothing left to strike out.
2. The third defendant was not entitled to costs. Its application had not succeeded in striking out a claim; the claim had already expired. The costs jurisdiction under section 51 and Part 44 of the CPR was not engaged. Alternatively, the discretion would have been exercised against a costs order because the application had been brought on the mistaken basis that a live claim existed.
3. Fifth defendant. Relief from sanction was granted. Applying the three-stage test in Denton v TH White [2014] 1 WLR 3926, the breach was serious, its explanation was unsatisfactory, but the application was prompt, had caused no material disruption, and refusal would have been disproportionate in the circumstances. The acknowledgement of service was validated and a short period was allowed for service of a defence if the claim otherwise continued.
4. First, second and fifth defendants. The claim was struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a), (b) and (c). The documents did not identify the causes of action, the defendant responsible for each alleged wrong, or a clear statement of the facts said to establish liability. The deficiencies prevented the defendants from pleading properly and prevented the court from determining what had to be proved. There was also non-compliance with pleading, verification, address and specific-allegation requirements.
5. A litigant in person is not subject to a separate, lower standard of compliance with procedural rules. The court applied the majority reasoning in Barton v Wright Hassall [2018] 1 WLR 1119. The civil court also had no jurisdiction to overturn the claimant’s criminal conviction, and findings inconsistent with it would constitute an impermissible collateral attack. The alternative applications for reverse summary judgment therefore did not require determination, although they would have been appropriate if the claim had not been struck out.

First-instance decision. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.