Kunle Abayomi v CIFAS

A claim may be struck out where it has no realistic prospect of success and is bound to fail on the pleaded and established facts. Data protection claims require a pleaded breach concerning the claimant’s own personal data; a non-specific fear of misuse is insufficient.

A court may proceed in a litigant’s absence where the litigant had proper notice, the reasons for non-attendance do not justify an adjournment, and proceeding is consistent with the overriding objective. Persistent totally without merit claims and applications across unrelated proceedings may justify a general civil restraint order for a proportionate period.

The claimant brought multiple proceedings against King’s College London concerning his postgraduate course and an alleged data breach. He also brought a defamation and UK GDPR claim against CIFAS concerning a fraud database marker. Several applications and appeals arose from strike-out orders, procedural orders, and civil restraint orders made in the County Court and High Court.

The claimant did not attend the combined hearing. The court determined whether it should proceed in his absence, whether two appeals had been automatically struck out for failure to file compliant appeal bundles, whether permission should be granted in a further appeal, whether the CIFAS claim should be struck out, and whether a general or extended civil restraint order should be made.

1. Proceeding in absence. Applying CPR 23.11(1) and the guidance in Sloutsker v Romanova, the court proceeded in the claimant’s absence. He had notice of the hearing and evidence, had repeatedly sought an adjournment, and had not shown that his health prevented participation. His conduct, the respondents’ attendance and costs, and the need to address the applications without further delay made proceeding consistent with the overriding objective.
2. Appeals. Appeals KA-2023-000165 and KA-2024-000016 had been automatically struck out under earlier unless orders because compliant appeal bundles were not filed and no timely applications for extensions were made. Being unrepresented did not exempt the claimant from complying with the CPR and Practice Directions. Permission was refused in the relevant parts of KA-2024-000099 because the proposed grounds had no real prospect of success and disclosed no compelling reason for an appeal. Consideration of permission concerning the striking out of the Consolidated claims was adjourned pending a transcript of the lower court’s judgment.
3. CIFAS claim. The pleaded defamation claim was bound to fail. If properly pleaded, the marker would be substantially true under section 2 of the Defamation Act 2013, or protected by honest opinion under section 3. The UK GDPR claim was also bound to fail. CIFAS was a controller or joint controller, but the marker was capable of lawful processing under Articles 5 and 6.1(f), and the accuracy requirement was satisfied. The claim was struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and certified totally without merit.
4. Civil restraint order. The claimant had persistently made claims and applications certified, or properly found, to be totally without merit. A general civil restraint order was necessary and proportionate because an extended order would not adequately address litigation concerning unrelated grievances. It was granted for three years, subject to stated exceptions, and the existing limited civil restraint order was set aside.
5. KCL received £12,534 including VAT on the standard basis. CIFAS received its costs on the indemnity basis, subject to detailed assessment.

• County Court: Various claims and applications concerning King’s College London and CIFAS were struck out or dismissed, with several totally without merit certifications and civil restraint orders.
• High Court: Appeals KA-2023-000165 and KA-2024-000016 were automatically struck out under earlier unless orders. Permission to appeal was refused in the determined parts of KA-2024-000099, with consideration of permission concerning the Consolidated claims adjourned pending a transcript.