Anal Sheikh v The Law Society of England and Wales & Ors

Under Senior Courts Act 1981, section 42(3), leave to institute, continue or make an application in civil proceedings may be granted only where the court is satisfied that the proposed proceedings or application are not an abuse of process and have reasonable grounds.

Re-litigation of finally concluded claims, intervention in proceedings in which the applicant was not involved, generalised allegations unsupported by substance, and attempts to challenge statutory policy through litigation may satisfy neither limb. The statutory power to revise the Law Society’s intervention regime belongs to Parliament. Complaints about an individual intervention should ordinarily be addressed at the time of that intervention and by reference to its particular facts.

The claimant was subject to an indefinite all-proceedings order made in 2019 under section 42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. She applied under section 42(3) for leave to issue a draft application seeking to reopen numerous concluded proceedings, challenge historic interventions by the Law Society, commence proceedings involving numerous individuals and public bodies, and pursue wide-ranging allegations of fraud, conspiracy and Convention violations.

The central issues were whether the proposed proceedings and applications constituted an abuse of process and whether there were reasonable grounds for them.

1. The application for leave under section 42(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 was dismissed and certified totally without merit.
2. Section 42(3) imposes two cumulative requirements. Leave can be granted only if the High Court is satisfied both that the proposed proceedings or application are not an abuse of process and that there are reasonable grounds for them.
3. The proposed litigation was an abuse of process. It sought to reopen final decisions made years earlier, intervene in concluded litigation in which the claimant had not been involved, and pursue an expansive collection of claims arising from long-standing grievances.
4. The claimant had identified no ground for reopening or overturning the Court of Appeal’s decision concerning the intervention into Ashley & Co, or the other intervention decisions. Generalised assertions that the intervention procedure was fraudulent, and conspiracy allegations of the utmost seriousness, did not provide reasonable grounds.
5. The court held that any challenge to the intervention powers conferred on the Law Society by section 35 and Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974 was a matter for Parliament. Complaints about the exercise of those powers should be raised in the individual intervention and considered by reference to the facts of that case.
6. In the postscript, the court stated that the powers exercisable on intervention by the Law Society and the court are contained in Part II of Schedule 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974, as interpreted in case law and applied to the facts of individual cases.

Divisional Court of the Administrative Court: an indefinite all-proceedings order was made against the claimant on 26 March 2019 under section 42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, for reasons set out in [2019] EWHC 763 (Admin).

High Court (Business and Property Courts): leave under section 42(3) was refused and the application was certified totally without merit.