KKK v Elena Tsirilna t/a Blokh Solicitors

A court may proceed with an application in a party’s absence where the party knew of the hearing, had no good reason for non-attendance, and could properly protect their interests. Summary judgment is appropriate where the claim has no realistic prospect of success and there is no compelling reason for trial. A claim may also be struck out for limitation, inadequate particulars, or non-compliance with procedural requirements. A legal services ombudsman determination bars later proceedings only in respect of the matter actually determined. Confidentiality obligations do not prevent disclosure authorised by the retainer or reasonably necessary for a solicitor’s defence to a complaint. A claimant must provide evidence of breach, causation, risk and loss.

The claimant had instructed the defendant in relation to an asylum claim and later an application to the European Court of Human Rights. Following a Legal Ombudsman complaint, which resulted in a £50,000 settlement concerning other service issues, the claimant issued proceedings seeking substantial damages for alleged breach of contract and confidentiality. He alleged that disclosure of his address and family information endangered them and caused financial and emotional loss.

The defendant applied for reverse summary judgment under CPR r.24.3, alternatively strike-out under CPR r.3.4(2). The claimant did not attend the hearing. The central issues were whether the court should proceed in his absence, whether the claim was procedurally barred or inadequately pleaded, and whether it had any realistic prospect of success.

1. The court proceeded in the claimant’s absence under CPR r.23.11. He knew of the hearing, had received the application materials, had not made a formal adjournment application, and had not provided evidence supporting his asserted need for closed material procedures or explaining his non-attendance.

2. The claim was time-barred. On the claimant’s pleaded case, the alleged disclosures occurred no later than 2017, or the retainer ended in 2016. The six-year periods under sections 2 and 5 of the Limitation Act 1980 had expired. Section 14A did not assist because the claim was brought more than three years after the alleged date of knowledge. Section 32 was inapplicable because the alleged disclosure was not deliberately concealed.

3. The claim also failed to comply with CPR r.16.4 and paragraph 7.4 of Practice Direction 16. It did not adequately identify the allegedly disclosed information, the basis of the alleged risk, the alleged oral confidentiality agreement, or the claimed losses. Although the claimant was unrepresented, these deficiencies supported strike-out in combination with limitation.

4. The Legal Ombudsman’s determination did not bar the confidentiality claim under section 140 of the Legal Services Act 2007, because the Ombudsman had expressly declined to investigate or determine that complaint.

5. The confidentiality claim had no realistic prospect of success. The address relied upon was acquired after the retainer ended, was registered in the claimant’s wife’s name, and had been placed in public records. There was no evidence that the defendant possessed or disclosed it, or that disclosure created any real risk.

6. The contractual terms authorised disclosure to relevant governmental bodies and other persons where necessary for the services or legal and regulatory purposes. Disclosure to solicitors instructed to respond to the claimant’s complaint was also covered by an implied waiver of confidentiality. Paragon Finance Plc v Freshfields and Lillicrap v Nalder & Son supported that conclusion. Bolkiah v KPMG and Marks and Spencer Plc v Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer were distinguishable because they concerned conflicts and safeguards against inadvertent disclosure, not waiver.

7. The claimant had no realistic prospect of proving causation or loss. The pleaded property loss was inconsistent with the chronology, ownership evidence and the claimant’s own public disclosure of the address. Other losses were either unrelated to the alleged breach or insufficiently particularised.

8. Reverse summary judgment was granted under CPR r.24.3. The anonymity order was revoked, but its effect was preserved for seven days to permit an application to revisit the decision or maintain anonymity.