Iain Clifford Stamp v Open Democracy

A claim may be struck out under CPR 3.4(2) where its pleadings are prolix, incoherent and abusive, disclose no reasonable grounds, or are likely to obstruct the just disposal of proceedings. A defamation claim must identify the meaning complained of and the facts and matters relied upon to establish serious harm. Where the claimant insists that materially defective pleadings are adequate, and their conduct shows no realistic prospect of cure, the court may refuse an opportunity to amend. The claim may also be certified as totally without merit where it is bound to fail. Repeated totally without merit claims and indications of further abusive conduct may justify referral to a High Court Judge to consider an extended civil restraint order.

The defendant applied under CPR 3.4(2) to strike out the claimant’s claim. The claimant sought £5 million in damages for defamation arising from an investigative article concerning Matrix Freedom. His pleadings also referred to tort, human rights and constitutional rights, statutes, maxims and legal propositions of unclear relevance.

The claimant appeared in person and maintained that the pleadings were sufficiently clear. The defendant submitted that they were incoherent, abusive, non-compliant and incapable of proper defence. The central questions were whether the claim satisfied the strike-out criteria, whether an opportunity to amend should be given, and whether the claim should be certified as totally without merit.

1. Strike out. The defendant’s application was allowed under all three limbs of CPR 3.4(2). The claimant had filed three separate iterations of the claim, each prolix and incoherent. They contained irrelevant or unclear US authorities, nebulous causes of action, human-rights and constitutional assertions, statutes and maxims. The pleadings were therefore abusive and disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim.
2. The pleadings would obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings because the defendant and the court would have to surmise the intended cause of action and facts from an unintelligible collection of words. That approach was an abuse of the court’s process.
3. To the extent that a defamation claim was pleaded, it failed to comply with PD53B para 4.2(4), because the meaning of the words complained of was not sufficiently identified. It also failed to identify adequately the facts and matters relied upon to satisfy the serious-harm requirement in section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013.
4. The claimant had been informed of the defects and remained determined to proceed on the existing pleadings. His insistence that the claim was compliant, and his pursuit of an untenable default-judgment application, showed that there was no realistic prospect that further time to amend would cure the defects.
5. The claimant’s stated intention to re-file the claim if struck out, and his assertion that he might submit hundreds of witness statements, materially reinforced the conclusion that the proceedings were abusive.
6. The claim was struck out in its entirety and certified as totally without merit under CPR 3.4(6). In view of three totally without merit orders, the proceedings were transferred to a High Court Judge to consider whether an extended civil restraint order should be made.

First-instance decision on the defendant’s application under CPR 3.4(2). No appeal history was stated in the judgment.