Franklin William Rzucek v Alan Vinnicombe

Failure to comply with pleading rules is not a mere technicality and litigants in person remain subject to those rules. Where repeated opportunities and an unless order have not produced a compliant defence, the court may strike it out and enter judgment. A harassment counterclaim must identify the constituent elements of the alleged course of conduct and may be struck out where it discloses no reasonable grounds. Security for costs is discretionary and depends on whether it is just in all the circumstances. Relevant considerations include the likely stifling effect, access to alternative funding, the apparent merits, and the timing of the application. An unexplained late application may make an order unjust, particularly where procedural defaults have prolonged the proceedings.

The claimant brought claims in defamation and harassment concerning content distributed by the defendant through his YouTube channel. The defendant brought a counterclaim alleging harassment by the claimant. The claimant applied to strike out the defence and counterclaim and sought judgment. The defendant applied for security for costs, relying on the claimant’s residence outside the jurisdiction and impecuniosity.

The defendant had served several non-compliant defences despite two unless orders and repeated opportunities to remedy the deficiencies. The central issues were whether the defence and counterclaim should be struck out, whether judgment should be entered, and whether it would be just to order security for costs at that stage.

1. Defence. The latest defence failed to comply with CPR r.16.5 and CPR PD53B. It consisted largely of legal wording and vague assertions, without properly responding to the particulars of claim or setting out any alternative version of events. Compliance with pleading rules is essential to procedural fairness. Litigants in person are not exempt from compliance, although the court must recognise the difficulties they face. After several opportunities and a clear final unless order, the defence remained non-compliant. It was therefore struck out under CPR r.3.4(2), and judgment was entered for the claimant.
2. Counterclaim. The counterclaim gave no sufficient particulars of the alleged harassment and disclosed no real grounds for bringing it. It was struck out.
3. Security for costs. The jurisdictional conditions for security were satisfied, but the order remained discretionary. The court considered the claimant’s impecuniosity, the possible stifling effect, the availability of funds from other sources, the apparent merits, and the timing of the application. The claimant had not shown that stifling was more likely than not, since there was no evidence that funds could not be obtained from family or further crowdfunding. The procedural history also indicated a high likelihood that the claim would succeed, making the merits relevant despite the usual caution against detailed merits assessment.
4. The application was made more than a year after security was first raised, following multiple defective defences and unless orders. That delay had prolonged the proceedings and increased costs. Considering all the circumstances, it was not just to order security at that late stage. The application was dismissed. The matter was listed for a remedies hearing and costs were reserved.

Not an appeal. The judgment concerns first-instance applications in the High Court.