Denys Namystiuk v NRC (UK Representation Office)

A renewed application for permission to appeal requires an arguable basis for challenging the order under appeal. A speculative claim based on an incomplete assistance-application process is not arguable where the claimant has not completed the relevant stages and cannot identify an accrued contractual entitlement.

A bias allegation must identify a rational connection between the alleged interest and the decision. A general or unsupported assertion is insufficient. A discrimination claim must identify the protected characteristic, legal basis and relevant facts. Strike-out in accordance with a clear, reasonable and proportionate procedure does not, without more, infringe the right to a fair trial.

The claimant brought proceedings against the Norwegian Refugee Council, described in the proceedings as NRC (UK Representation Office), relying principally on an alleged promise of financial assistance after he supplied information through WhatsApp. A previous Master stayed the claim and required particulars of claim and the legal basis of the claim, with strike-out to follow in default.

Master Cook refused an application to lift the stay and struck out the claim as totally without merit. A single judge refused permission to appeal on the papers but allowed an exceptional oral renewal. The claimant challenged the decision on alleged bias, an arguable contractual claim, discrimination and fair-trial grounds.

1. Permission to appeal refused. The claimant’s challenge to Master Cook’s order was not arguable, and the claim remained struck out as totally without merit.
2. The alleged connection between Master Cook and the Bar Benevolent Association did not disclose apparent or actual bias. The claimant identified no rational connection between that alleged connection and the decision under challenge. The allegation that the Master received payments was unsupported and irrelevant to the claim.
3. The alleged contractual claim was not arguable. The claimant had begun, but had not completed, the different stages of the Norwegian Refugee Council’s assistance programme. On the evidence, he therefore had no claim to payment, or to an enforceable entitlement arising from the possibility of receiving modest financial assistance. The claim also lacked an arguable jurisdictional basis against the defendant in this court.
4. The discrimination allegation was inadequately particularised. It did not identify the applicable remedy or legal basis, nor an identifiable protected group beyond the claimant’s Ukrainian nationality.
5. The fair-trial argument was also unarguable. The right to a fair trial is not absolute, and the proceedings had provided a clear, reasonable and proportionate procedure. The claimant had received three opportunities to persuade the court that he had an arguable claim.
6. The judge agreed with the reasons of the single judge who had refused permission on the papers. The earlier orders therefore remained in force.

• High Court, King’s Bench Division: On 7 June 2023, a Master stayed the claim, required an application to lift the stay and supporting particulars of claim, and directed that the claim would be struck out for non-compliance.
• High Court, King’s Bench Division: On 16 August 2023, Master Cook refused the application to lift the stay and directed that the claim be struck out as totally without merit.
• High Court, King’s Bench Division: On 6 March 2024, a single judge refused permission to appeal on the papers but permitted an exceptional oral renewal.
• High Court, King’s Bench Division: The renewed application was refused and the earlier orders remained in force.