Denys Namystiuk v NRC (UK Representation Office)

The court refused the renewed application for permission to appeal against Master Cook's order refusing to lift a stay and striking out the claimant's proceedings as totally without merit. The judge rejected an allegation of judicial bias based on an asserted connection between Master Cook and the Barristers' Benevolent Association. The court also held there was no arguable cause of action because the claimant had not completed the application process for the Norwegian Refugee Council assistance, there was no pleaded basis for asserting jurisdiction in this court, and discrimination and human rights arguments were inadequately particularised.

Background: The claimant, a litigant in person, sought to challenge Master Cook's decision refusing an application to lift a stay and striking out his claim as totally without merit. A previous Master of the High Court had stayed the proceedings on 7 June 2023 and required the claimant to apply to lift the stay and to provide particulars of claim by 11 August 2023, failing which the claim would be struck out. The claimant applied on 7 July 2023; Master Cook refused to lift the stay and directed that the claim be struck out (decision dated in the papers to 16 August 2023). A single judge refused permission to appeal on the papers on 6 March 2024 but allowed an oral renewal, which was heard on 25 March 2024.

Nature of the application and relief sought: The claimant sought permission to appeal the striking-out order and the lifting of the stay so that his substantive claim against NRC (UK Representation Office) could proceed. Substantively he asserted a contractual/unilateral-offer type claim for small payments allegedly promised in connection with the Norwegian Refugee Council's multi-purpose assistance programme and identified sums of £145, £290 and an unparticularised claim of £23,585.50. He also advanced allegations of discrimination and an argument that striking out had infringed his right to a fair trial.

Issues framed by the court: (i) whether Master Cook was biased or partial; (ii) whether there was an arguable cause of action or other basis for jurisdiction in this court; (iii) whether discrimination or human rights grounds were made out or particularised adequately.

Court's reasoning: On bias, the court found no basis for concluding Master Cook was partial; the asserted connection to the Barristers' Benevolent Association did not explain any relevance to the proceedings and there was no evidence of payments to a judge. On the merits, the claimant had begun but not completed the NRC application process and therefore had not established an arguable claim to the modest sums alleged; additionally the materials did not identify any basis for jurisdiction over the Norwegian Refugee Council. The discrimination claim was not particularised or linked to any statutory remedy such as under the Equality Act 2010. The contention that striking out violated the claimant's fair trial rights was rejected as the procedural steps taken were clear, reasonable and proportionate and the claimant had multiple opportunities to make his case.

Disposition: The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused and the earlier orders striking out the claim were upheld; the claimant's proceedings therefore remain dismissed.

The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused and the earlier order of Master Cook striking out the claimant's claim as totally without merit was upheld. The court found no arguable bias on the part of Master Cook and no arguable cause of action or basis for jurisdiction; discrimination and human-rights arguments were inadequately particularised.

The Master of the High Court stayed the claim on 7 June 2023 and ordered the claimant to apply in writing to lift the stay and to provide particulars by 11 August 2023 or face strike out. The claimant applied on 7 July 2023. Master Cook refused the application and directed that the claim be struck out as totally without merit (decision in the papers dated 16 August 2023). A single judge refused permission to appeal on the papers on 6 March 2024 but allowed an oral renewal, which was heard before Mr Justice Goose on 25 March 2024, who refused permission and upheld the strike out (this judgment, [2024] EWHC 1040 (KB)).