Peter Gaisiance v DVSA & Anor

The court may actively manage an inadequately particularised claim before service, including by requiring clarification and further information, maintaining a stay and retaining the claim form.

A claimant may pursue a properly pleaded contractual claim concerning the alleged failure of driving theory tests, but cannot use the proceedings to advance unspecified wrongdoing by third parties. An interim injunction requires a pleaded final injunction or other substantive relief capable of supporting it. An excessive and wholly unparticularised damages claim may be struck out as disclosing no reasonable grounds and constituting an abuse of process. A straightforward, low-value contractual claim may be transferred to the county court.

The claimant issued proceedings against the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency and Reed in Partnership Limited after failing nine driving theory tests. He alleged contractual breaches, interference by an unidentified third-party interest, consequential losses and damages of £20 million.

The claim was stayed before service, and the claimant was directed to provide further information about the alleged interference, the test results, causation, damages, any injunction and the appropriate procedure. He applied to set aside or vary the orders, lift the stay and proceed with the claim.

The central issues were whether the claim should be further defined or struck out in part, whether an interim injunction application was abusive, and whether the remaining claim should be transferred to the county court.

1. Active case management. The court was entitled to require the claimant to clarify, define and explain his case. CPR 1.1, CPR 1.2, CPR 1.4, Practice Direction 3A and CPR 18.1 authorised active management, including stays, retention of the claim form and orders for further information. Such directions were consistent with adversarial litigation and did not make the court inquisitorial.
2. Driving-test claim. The claimant could not be refused permission at that stage to pursue the contention that he should have passed the tests. If he had answered sufficient questions correctly and identified sufficient hazards, he could establish the alleged contractual breach; the available material did not permit an unequivocal conclusion at that stage.
3. Injunction. The application notice seeking an interim injunction was struck out as an abuse of process because neither the claim form nor the particulars pleaded a final injunction. The claimant could seek amendment and renew the application, but only on a properly pleaded basis.
4. Scope of claim. The proceedings were confined to contractual claims against the two defendants concerning the failed driving theory tests. Unspecified wrongdoing by other persons was not properly pleaded, disclosed no reasonable grounds and was an abuse of process. Those elements were struck out for non-compliance with CPR 16.4.
5. Damages. The £20 million claim was wholly unparticularised, unreal and unreasonable in the context of the pleaded dispute. It disclosed no reasonable grounds, was abusive and failed to comply with the order requiring specification of loss and causation. The claimant was not prevented from applying properly to plead consequential damages.
6. Transfer and final directions. After the strikings-out, the claim was a low-value and straightforward contractual claim suitable for the county court. The possibility of an injunction did not prevent transfer, since the county court could in principle grant the proposed contractual remedy. The matter was transferred to the County Court sitting at Central London; following allocation, the stay was lifted and the claim form was released for service.

First-instance case-management decision. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.