Dr Malay Haldar & Anor v Dawn Crook & Ors

The court may determine an application in the applicant’s absence where the applicant had, or ought to have had, notice and a further adjournment would undermine the overriding objective. An interim payment application cannot be made before the claim form has been served and the acknowledgement-of-service period has expired. Relief from sanctions requires the three-stage analysis in Denton v White, including the seriousness of the breach, any good reason, and all the circumstances. Persistent failure to provide intelligible pleadings and comply with unless orders justified refusal of relief. A claim cannot be used as a collateral challenge to decisions which must be challenged through the applicable statutory appeal or judicial-review route.

Two claims had been struck out after repeated failures to comply with orders requiring intelligible Particulars of Claim and supporting material. The claims appeared to challenge disciplinary and registration decisions concerning the claimants’ medical practice, and to seek damages against public bodies and officials. The claimants applied to restore the claims and for relief from sanctions. They also sought interim payments, default judgment and summary judgment. The applications were repeatedly adjourned, but the claimants did not attend the final hearing. The central issues were whether the court should proceed in their absence, whether interim payment applications were procedurally available, and whether relief from the strike-out sanctions should be granted.

1. Proceeding in absence. Applying CPR 23.11 and the overriding objective in CPR 1.1, the court proceeded without the claimants. They had been sent the hearing documents to their stated postal and email addresses, had previously communicated extensively with the court, and had offered no current evidence justifying another adjournment. A further adjournment would have delayed the proceedings, consumed disproportionate court resources and undermined compliance with orders.
2. Interim payments. Under CPR 25.21(1), an interim payment application could not be made before the period for filing an acknowledgement of service had expired. That period had not begun because the claim forms had never been released for service and had not been served. The applications were therefore dismissed. In any event, the requirement in CPR 25.23 that the claim be likely to succeed could not be satisfied where the pleaded case was unintelligible. The applications were certified as totally without merit.
3. Relief from sanctions. The court applied the three-stage approach in Denton v White: whether the breach was serious or substantial, whether there was a good reason, and whether relief was just in all the circumstances. The breaches were serious and substantial. The claimants had repeatedly failed to provide a concise statement of facts, a chronological history, intelligible claims, or an explanation addressing collateral challenge, jurisdiction and the applicable statutory appeal routes. Their status as litigants in person and their vulnerabilities supplied no sufficient reason for the repeated non-compliance. The effect on the litigation and court resources, together with the importance of enforcing orders, made relief unjustified.
4. The claims were, on the material available, impermissible collateral challenges and appeared bound to fail or constitute an abuse of process. Challenges to the disciplinary decisions belonged within the statutory appeal process under the Medical Act 1983, including appeals to the Administrative Court. Registration or revalidation issues had to follow the route to the Registration Appeals Panel and then the County Court. The restoration and other applications were dismissed and certified totally without merit.
5. The court imposed an injunction, with a penal notice, restricting the claimants’ communications with the court to hard-copy delivery. The claims were referred to Soole J for consideration of civil restraint orders, injunctions or other appropriate orders.