Hare v Leeds City Council & Anor [2005] EWCA Civ 449

Case No A2/2004/2300[2005] EWCA Civ 449
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Venue (LEEDS DISTRICT REGISTRY)
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE GRENFELL)
(SITTING AS A DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT)
Venue Royal Courts of JusticeDate Friday, 4th March 2005
Strand
London, WC2
B E F O R E:
LORD JUSTICE THOMAS
Between
MARGARET HAREAppellant-v-
Between
LEEDS CITY COUNCILRespondentWEST YORKSHIRE POLICERespondent
(Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes ofSmith Bernal Wordwave Limited190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AGTel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
THE APPELLANT APPEARED IN PERSON for in person for THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT ATTEND AND WERE NOT REPRESENTED
J U D G M E N TFriday, 4th March 2005
[1]MR JUSTICE THOMAS: There is before the court an application for permission to appeal against a judgment given by His Honour Judge Grenfell at the Leeds County Court on 12th October 2004.[2]The circumstances giving rise to the appeal are as follows. On 11th August 2004, the claimant, who is the applicant for permission before the court, issued proceedings in the High Court against Leeds City Council and West Yorkshire Police. The claim set out that the city council and the police were causing damage to her, disrupting her business, and injuring her health. She included in the claim allegations under Protocol 1, Article 1 and Article 8. She also sought in the claim form disclosure of various documents.[3]The matter came before His Honour Judge Grenfell on 25th August for a case management conference. As he sets out in his judgment, he heard Miss Hare in person and she attempted to explain what the case was all about. He said that he was left in a state of some confusion, and that although he was not unused to very complicated claims coming from litigants in person, he found it very difficult to follow what the claim was. He understood from Miss Hare that she would be taking some further advice.[4]After the case management conference the defendants put in a defence. In essence the first defendants took the point that they were embarrassed to plead the claim. They responded as fully as possible and contended the claim should be struck out under CPR 3.4.[5]The matter came back before the judge on 12th October where he again tried to understand the claim. In a very careful judgment he set out the history of the matter as it appeared before him and concluded as follows at paragraph 22:
"I am, however, quite clear in my own mind that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing this claim and, for those reasons, it must follow that it has to be struck out. I have been anxious through both the hearings to avoid any further and unnecessary costs because I have to say that on seeing the claim I anticipated that unless Miss Hare was able to show some real factual basis for bringing this claim, this was likely to be the result. Sadly, the claim has not improved and there is still, as I have already held, no factual basis to support the claim. It has no prospect of success and therefore must be struck out, but mercifully, minimal costs only have been incurred by those who have been named as defendants..."
[6]In the judgment the learned judge accepted that Miss Hare held beliefs about her claim very strongly. Miss Hare has, in the papers that I have seen and in a very careful submission to me, where she took me through some of the documents, the judgment, and explained the position, I too have understood what the broad nature of her complaint is.[7]She became the licensee and leaseholder of a public house at Pudsey in West Yorkshire. She was also the freehold owner of the Royal Oak. She has told me that she has built those businesses up from scratch. In an accountant's letter that is before me it is clear that in a number of years the World's End made a profit; however in the year 2004 it suffered a significant loss.[8]Her case is that the council and the police have made accusations against her and then taken action to damage her business. She has told me that customers have been discouraged because she has seen people at the doorway telling people that the World's End is full. She has heard others saying it was not open when that was not the case. As a result of these untruthful statements fewer are visiting her premises. She has told me that people have been sabotaging some of her equipment. She has lost money from the till, the tills were damaged, and water got into her cellar. She has also told me that people who used to work for her, but who also had contracts with Leeds Council, had changed their relationship with her. They were not prepared to work for her any longer.[9]It is her case that, in essence, Leeds City Council and the others named in the claim, are conspiring together to damage her business. She says that the motive for this is that there is a desire to redevelop the town centre of Pudsey for which apparently significant external funds are available.[10]I have no doubt that the effect of this on Miss Hare has been, as she tells me, to damage her health. I also have little doubt, as did the judge, that Miss Hare holds the beliefs very strongly.[11]I have summarised what she has told me because it follows very closely with what she told the learned judge, but there is one additional fact; she told me she has been to try and get legal advice but no further advice has been forthcoming.[12]It is against that background that I have considered whether there is any real prospect that Miss Hare will succeed, if this matter proceeds to a hearing, in setting aside the order of Judge Grenfell. I share Judge Grenfell's anxious concern in matters of this kind where a court is also keen to see if there is some factual or other basis on which a person who has no legal assistance has a genuine claim. I have no doubt, as did the judge, that if there could be found some factual basis for Miss Hare's beliefs then that would, as the judge put it, be an appalling situation and a serious breach of her human rights.[13]It seems to me, however, that the claim, as put forward in the documents, and as amplified in what she has told me, even taking both together, has no real factual basis upon which Miss Hare can bring the claim. It seems to me that the learned judge was entirely right in the view that he took that this claim had no prospect of success. In saying that I therefore refuse permission to appeal.[14]I know this will cause a grave disappointment to Miss Hare. It may be that her correct course would be to seek legal advice. But on the basis of the papers before me, taking full account of what she has told me, bearing in mind that she is a litigant in person without any legal advice, I very much regret to have to tell her that I refuse permission to appeal. What she does hereafter in relation to these matters is a matter on which this court cannot assist her, but upon which she must take legal advice.

ORDER

application refused.

Cited in 1 later judgment