Kunle Abayomi v CIFAS

The court considered multiple interrelated proceedings issued by the claimant, including a County Court claim transferred to the High Court against CIFAS for alleged defamation and breach of UK GDPR. The judge applied the strike out principles under CPR 3.4(2) and the summary judgment / no prospect of success tests (Swain v Hillman style test as explained in Begum v Maran) and concluded that the pleaded CIFAS claim disclosed no reasonable grounds and was bound to fail.

The court also addressed procedural applications and multiple outstanding appeals, applying the rules on permission to appeal (PD52B / CPR 52.6) and the power to proceed in the absence of a party under CPR 23.11. Two of the appellant’s outstanding High Court appeals were found to have been automatically struck out for failure to file PD52B-compliant bundles in accordance with earlier unless-orders. Where appeals or applications remained, the court refused permission to appeal for lack of real prospects of success or other compelling reasons.

Given numerous prior certifications of being "totally without merit" and repeated meritless litigation, the court granted a General Civil Restraint Order for three years (GCRO) under PD 3C, struck out the CIFAS claim and entered judgment for CIFAS, and made protective costs orders: KCL awarded standard basis costs (reduced on summary assessment) and CIFAS awarded indemnity costs to be assessed if not agreed.

Background and parties

• The claimant, acting in person, brought multiple proceedings arising out of his Master’s course at King’s College London and a separate claim against CIFAS concerning a marker placed on the National Fraud Database by Barclays and maintained by CIFAS. The CIFAS claim alleged defamation and breach of UK GDPR; the claimant sought damages and removal of the marker.
• CIFAS applied to strike out the claim or for reverse summary judgment, for a declaration that the claim is totally without merit, and for an Extended Civil Restraint Order. KCL applied for a General Civil Restraint Order in related litigation; various related appeals and applications were listed for a consolidated hearing.

Nature of the primary relief sought

• The CIFAS defendant sought strike out under CPR 3.4(2) (no reasonable grounds / abuse of process / failure to comply with court orders) and reverse summary judgment; alternatively certification of the claim as totally without merit and an ECRO. KCL sought a GCRO in its proceedings.

Issues the court framed

• Whether the CIFAS claim disclosed reasonable grounds and should be struck out;
• Whether outstanding appeals had been automatically struck out for failure to comply with PD52B / 'unless' orders;
• Whether permission to appeal should be granted in respect of various High Court appeals;
• Whether it was appropriate to proceed with the 20 November 2024 hearing in the claimant’s absence under CPR 23.11; and
• Whether a civil restraint order (LCRO / ECRO / GCRO) should be made in light of numerous totally without merit findings.

Court’s reasoning and conclusions

• The judge applied the realistic / fanciful prospect test (Swain v Hillman as explained in Begum v Maran and associated authorities) and concluded the CIFAS particulars were deficient in critical respects: the defamation pleading did not identify the words complained of, their alleged defamatory meaning, nor properly pleaded UK GDPR breaches. Independent factual difficulties went beyond mere pleading defects; contemporaneous documents disclosed a credible basis for CIFAS’ marker and made the claimant’s theory (that he was entitled to the sums or to bring the chargebacks) unavailing.
• The court analysed Article 5 and Article 6 UK GDPR considerations and concluded CIFAS could show lawful processing and accuracy on the facts alleged, and that, on the defamation pleaded facts, CIFAS had available statutory defences (truth or honest opinion under the Defamation Act 2013 ss.2–3).
• The judge also checked CE-File and other materials and concluded two appellant notices had been automatically struck out where earlier mandatory 'unless' orders required PD52B-compliant bundles by fixed dates which were not met; no N244 applications to extend time had been made. Where appeals remained extant, permission to appeal was refused for lack of real prospects of success or other compelling reasons, save that the judge ordered a transcript at public expense of the 8 April 2024 judgment so that one limited remaining permission application could be addressed.
• On procedure, the court applied the test for proceeding in absence (CPR 23.11 and authority in Sloutsker v Romanova) and detailed why the claimant’s stated health and availability reasons did not justify adjourning the hearing. The court emphasised repeated communications, multiple meritless applications and threatening emails to CIFAS’ solicitors as relevant background.
• Because of the multiplicity of totally without merit certifications and the claimant’s persistent pattern of issuing meritless claims and applications across different defendants, the court considered an ECRO insufficient and granted a GCRO for three years directing the claimant to obtain permission before issuing or making further claims or applications in the specified courts, with limited exceptions.
• Costs: KCL was awarded costs on the standard basis (reduced on summary assessment at hand-down). CIFAS was awarded costs on an indemnity basis to be subject to detailed assessment if not agreed, given the weak, vexatious nature of the CIFAS claim and the claimant’s conduct.

Context and procedural disposition

• The decision was cross-cutting: it disposed of the CIFAS claim (struck out and certified totally without merit), recorded that two High Court appeals had been automatically struck out for non-compliance with PD52B 'unless' orders, refused permission to appeal on other issues, granted a three-year GCRO and made costs orders against the claimant.

The CIFAS claim is struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) as disclosing no reasonable grounds and judgment is entered for CIFAS; the claim is certified as totally without merit. Two appeals (KA-2023-000165 and KA-2024-000016) were automatically struck out for failure to comply with PD52B 'unless' orders, and permission to appeal was refused in respect of multiple other orders for lack of real prospects of success. The court proceeded in the claimant’s absence under CPR 23.11 after rejecting adjournment/recusal and health arguments. A three-year General Civil Restraint Order (GCRO) was made because the claimant had persistently issued totally without merit claims and applications. Costs were awarded to KCL on the standard basis (reduced on summary assessment) and to CIFAS on the indemnity basis (subject to detailed assessment if not agreed).

The judgment records extensive prior County Court and High Court proceedings. The claimant’s County Court claims against King’s College London had been consolidated and transferred; several interlocutory orders were made there and in the County Court. The claimant pursued multiple appeals to the High Court identified by KA numbers (KA-2023-000165, KA-2024-000016, KA-2024-000099). Two High Court appeals (KA-2023-000165 and KA-2024-000016) were automatically struck out pursuant to earlier unless-orders for failure to file PD52B-compliant bundles by specified dates (orders of Soole J dated 1 July 2024 and Sir Stephen Stewart dated 16 April 2024 respectively). Other appeals and applications were listed for hearing before the High Court on 20 November 2024 and were determined as described in the judgment (permission refused in most respects, a transcript at public expense ordered to enable consideration of one remaining permission issue).