John Clark & Ors v Gerry Adams & Anor

An unincorporated association is not a legal entity and cannot be sued in its own name. A representative claim under CPR 19.8 requires the representative and represented persons to have the same interest from the outset; that requirement cannot depend on facts that must be proved at trial. The represented class must also be coherently defined and have the same interest throughout the proceedings.

For QOCS, the question is whether the pleaded claim is a claim for damages for personal injuries. The expression receives a broad interpretation. A claim remains within CPR 44.13(1)(a) where personal-injury damages are limited to £1 and described as vindicatory, provided the claim is genuinely for damages rather than declaratory relief alone. The causes of action and the claimant’s motive do not determine the answer.

The claimants, injured in three bombing incidents attributed to the Provisional Irish Republican Army, sued Gerry Adams personally and in a representative capacity, and named the PIRA as a defendant. They claimed £1 for vindicatory purposes in assault and battery.

Mr Adams applied for the claim against the PIRA to be struck out, for the representative claim against him to be struck out, and for a declaration that the proceedings did not have QOCS protection. The court considered the legal status of an unincorporated association, the requirements for representative proceedings under CPR 19.8, and whether the pleaded nominal claim was a claim for damages for personal injuries under CPR 44.13(1)(a).

1. The claim against the PIRA. An unincorporated association is not a legal entity and cannot be sued in its own name. The claim against the PIRA was therefore struck out. The fact that a similar claim proceeded to trial in Breslin did not justify retaining the PIRA as a defendant.
2. Representative capacity. CPR 19.8 requires the representative and the represented persons to have the same interest. That condition must be satisfied from the outset and cannot depend on the outcome of the litigation. Since whether Mr Adams belonged to the PIRA, its Army Council or the pleaded classes could only be established at trial, his selection as representative assumed a fact which the claimants had to prove. The representative claim therefore failed.
3. The pleaded classes were also incoherent. They were insufficiently defined and lacked appropriate temporal limits. Membership during different periods, and involvement in three incidents over 23 years, could give members different interests. The claim against Mr Adams personally continued.
4. QOCS. The court should determine the issue at this stage to provide certainty. The focus was principally on the statements of case. CPR 44.13(1)(a) should be construed broadly and by reference to whether the proceedings included a claim for damages for personal injuries, rather than by reference to the causes of action, the amount claimed or the claimant’s motive.
5. The pleadings alleged assault and battery causing personal injury, particularised injuries, and claimed damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity, limited to £1. The limitation to nominal damages and the words “for vindicatory purposes” did not alter the character of the claim. The claim was not declaratory relief alone. It therefore enjoyed QOCS protection.

Orders were to be settled following submissions from counsel.