Muhammad Arshad v Wokingham Borough Council & Anor

A claim cannot be re-litigated by reformulating allegations arising from the same underlying proceedings. The principles of res judicata and Henderson v Henderson apply where matters were decided, or could and should have been raised, previously. A fraud-based challenge to a judgment requires evidence of conscious and deliberate dishonesty that was material and causative of the judgment. A civil claim in deceit additionally requires a knowingly false representation, reliance and loss. The Fraud Act 2006 does not itself create a civil cause of action. Claims that are inadequately particularised, abusive, disclose no reasonable grounds or have no real prospect of success may be struck out and summarily determined.

The claimant had previously sued Wokingham Borough Council concerning the licensing of his vehicle. Following a County Court trial, he succeeded only on a negligent-misstatement issue and recovered damages for psychiatric injury. The appeal by Wokingham was allowed by Bourne J, and permission for the claimant’s cross-appeal was refused. The Court of Appeal later refused permission to appeal.

The claimant then issued fresh High Court proceedings against Wokingham and its solicitors, alleging fraud, misfeasance in public office, harassment and human-rights violations. He relied on alleged new evidence and alleged concealment in the earlier proceedings. The issues were whether the claims were barred or abusive, whether they disclosed viable causes of action, and whether they should be struck out or summarily dismissed.

1. Disposition. The Claim Form and Particulars of Claim were struck out. Summary judgment was also entered because the claim had no real prospect of success and there were no compelling grounds for a trial. The claimant’s application for default judgment was devoid of merit.
2. Fraud. The Fraud Act 2006 does not create a civil cause of action. The court nevertheless considered the allegations as possible civil fraud or deceit claims. A judgment obtained by fraud may fall outside the ordinary rules of res judicata and Henderson v Henderson. The relevant test requires conscious and deliberate dishonesty concerning evidence, action, a statement or concealment; materiality; and causation. The fresh evidence must be capable of showing that the impugned conduct was an operative cause of the judgment, assessed by its effect on the evidence supporting the original decision.
3. The claimant identified no new evidence, no qualifying dishonesty and no material or causative conduct. The allegations concerning the taxi policy and concealed documents had already been raised or could have been raised in the earlier proceedings and appeals. They were therefore res judicata and an abuse of process. The deceit allegations also failed because no false representation or reliance was pleaded.
4. Other claims. Misfeasance in public office had not been raised at first instance and could not be introduced through fresh proceedings. The harassment claim was barred by the rule in Henderson v Henderson and, under section 11(1A) of the Limitation Act 1980, was time-barred insofar as it arose after 16 June 2019. The human-rights claims had not been pursued in the original proceedings and were likewise res judicata, abusive and inadequately particularised.
5. The claims against the solicitors could not be res judicata because they were not parties to the earlier proceedings, but they were inadequately identified and failed for the same substantive and procedural reasons. Misfeasance and Human Rights Act claims could not be made against the private limited partnership.
6. The court lacked jurisdiction to make an Extended Civil Restraint Order, but referred the judgment to a High Court judge to consider whether one should be made. The claimant was to be permitted to make submissions on that issue.

1. County Court: HHJ Melissa Clarke found that the discrimination and breach of statutory duty claims failed, but allowed a negligent-misstatement claim and awarded damages.
2. High Court (King’s Bench Division): Bourne J allowed Wokingham’s appeal in [2022] EWHC 2419 (KB) and refused permission for the claimant’s cross-appeal.
3. Court of Appeal: William Davis LJ refused permission to appeal on 6 June 2023.
4. High Court (King’s Bench Division): The present court struck out the fresh claim and granted summary judgment.