JUDGE MITCHELL:  Are we off and running?  Jolly good. Yes, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Moore is simply acting as an  observer. He is here actually more for the criminal cases, which will follow, but he is simply observing, so he will not take part, as it were, in the decision-making process.  All right, I gather, amongst all the vast paper work, as you can see it all spread out on this bench, we have a letter somewhere from Mrs. Lindridge – however could I forget that name – that she is ill or she has got some sort of medical attendance. I do not know whether you have seen it?

MR. FISHER:  Your Honour, I have not, no.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  I have. It is somewhere. The trouble is we are just inundated with verbiage – which I think is probably the right description. Wait a minute. Let me just have a look at this. I have not read it properly. I am going to have another look at it. You have a copy, Mr. Fisher.

MR. FISHER: Thank you, your Honour.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  I have said we are in chambers because it is your application to strike out, and also an appeal on paper, so I regard this as a chambers hearing, rather than an open court hearing that we had last week.

MR. FISHER: Yes, your Honour, hence I am not robed either.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  That is all right. Anyway, you had better have a look at that.

MR. FISHER: Yes, your Honour.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Just have a look at that.  You can see what I mean.

MR. FISHER: Your Honour, I have read it, I have scanned it quickly.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Can I say as well I know this to be the case, I have written something, she issued two witness summonses yesterday apparently, but with the greatest reluctance on the part of the staff. So I do not know what the Dickens has happened  to those poor unfortunate people.

MR. FISHER: No, one of these poor unfortunates is Mr. Ebert actually.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Is he here?

MR. FISHER: Not as far as I know, no, but that was one of the recipients, or people she purported to summons.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Can you imagine – I say this to you, Mr. Fisher, because you probably cannot – the trouble that this woman has caused the staff over the week when all these summonses were flying around like pieces of confetti?

MR. FISHER: I can, your Honour.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  It has virtually brought the court’s business to a stand still.

MR. FISHER: Yes.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  With people ringing up, abusing the staff, thinking that they are the ones who have issued the summonses.

MR. FISHER: Your Honour, quite, and Mr. Peck, my client, of course, has had to suffer the humiliation, indignity, and embarrassment of having his reputation tarnished in this way when Mrs. Lindridge deliberately states or admits that it was her intention to publicise these allegations through court proceedings because she could not get them taken seriously anywhere else for very good reasons.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  We are not going to take them seriously. I am not taking them seriously. This is mad.

MR. FISHER: Your Honour, I invite you to press ahead with the hearing in Mrs. Lindridge’s absence.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes, the thing was I do not know about you, but I got the distinct impression last week – a week ago last Friday – that she was paving the way not to be here through ill health.

MR. FISHER: Yes, your Honour.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  I made it absolutely plain – and it is on the tape – that if she had an appointment I would not trouble her today, but she was obviously prevaricating about it, and then suddenly she has gone ill. There is no medical evidence to that effect. So I am afraid we press on.

MR. FISHER: I am grateful, your Honour.   Of course, your Honour will be aware that under CPR 23.11, where the applicant or any respondent fails to attend the hearing the court may proceed in his absence. Your Honour is perfectly entitled to take that view.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  You know, I have to say that in the first place I was suspicious because I thought she was paving the way for that, but there is no medical evidence and personally quite frankly if people are ill there is no difficulty about getting a doctor to say so.

MR. FISHER: Quite, your Honour. If I can just read perhaps - - - -

JUDGE MITCHELL:  23 what is it?

MR. FISHER: It is 23.11 and the notes to the autumn edition of the White Book say, “The court should be very careful before proceeding with the hearing of an application in the absence of a litigant in person especially where the litigant for the first time had asked for an adjournment of the hearing, but had refused it.” Of course, this is not the first time, far from it, and no adjournment had been requested in advance. “In these circumstances the court should only proceed in the absence of the litigant where it is satisfied i.e. (a) that it was right to grant the applicant the relief he sought” – and in my submission it is – “or (b) that the application was plainly hopeless.” Again, your Honour, I would submit that the claimant’s opposition to these applications is plainly hopeless.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Give me that again. I am using the Brown Book because I am not in the County Court.

MR. FISHER: Would you like me to read it out or shall I - - - -

JUDGE MITCHELL:  No, just give me the principles. I will make a note.

MR. FISHER: If it is a litigant in person especially the court should be careful before proceeding especially where the litigant for the first time had asked for an adjournment of the hearing, but had been refused it. In these circumstances the court should only proceed in the absence of the litigant where it is satisfied either (a) that it was right to grant the applicant the relief he sought or (b) that the application was plainly hopeless. The citation of the case for that, the authority for that, is Fox v Graham Group Limited, The Times, 3^rd August 2001. Mr. Justice Neuberger

JUDGE MITCHELL:  He seems to do an awful lot of cases that are reported, does he not? I was reading something of his last night.   He is a very busy Judge I think.  

MR. FISHER: Your Honour, the applications, if we are to proceed in the absence of the claimant, the application that I would invite your Honour to consider are those made in the application of the 8^th January which you will recall were before the Court on the last occasion, but you felt in fairness to the claimant she had not had enough time to deal with them. Those are in fact – or the first paragraph has fallen by the wayside – leave to abridge time. Secondly, that the claim be struck out. Thirdly, that the application for the injunction be dismissed. The fourth application, your Honour granted on the last occasion, which was the dismissal of the notice to show cause. Costs. Also the extended Grepe & Loam Order, if I can describe it as such.  You will recall that this is the order restraining the issue of further proceedings.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes, I do.

MR. FISHER: And making applications in the existing proceedings.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Can you just identify this. I have found, and I have read it, but it is a while ago, the actual statement of claim in the particulars of claim in this particular case. It is some rambling document, is it not, along with all the others.

MR. FISHER: Your Honour, the claim form – I was intending, your Honour, to read this out just to highlight for you, and for the Court, just what it is that we are dealing with here. The application has the - - - -

JUDGE MITCHELL:  I think I am beginning to realise.

MR. FISHER: The claimant has ticked the box to say that it includes issues under the Human Rights Act, although those are not spelt out at all. The details of the claim, which is the only statement of case that I have seen, is endorsed on the claim form itself, which is perfectly acceptable. Details of the claim, immediate ex parte interim injunction to last until (1) the presiding Judge has examined evidence – and your Honour will, I am sure, be aware that that just is not something that this court can order.  Then (2) a high ranking policeman from outside of Kent has been appointed to examine allegations.  Again that is not something the Court has power to do.  Sixty six witness summons have been returned, evidence examined in relation to this, and twelve other Court actions. Twelve other Court actions – as attached – except that they were not. Criminal charges to follow. As far as my client is aware there are  no criminal charges. Fourthly, “I seek a court approved statement of true facts where records, including police and medical records, have been erased, altered and are misleading and judgments changed where needed.” Your Honour, again, I would say, does not have power to order that and, in any event, it has no bearing upon my client at all unless the suggestion is that he has in some way changed the medical records, for which there is no evidence.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Oh, oh, it is the doctors – I do not know where that has come from – the poor old – it is the doctors surgery at Barstead that gets that allegation. I think she says that the police have conspired with them as well you know - - - -

MR. FISHER: Yes, reading between the lines of her statement I suspect that that arises from the fact that at some point during the medical examinations a doctor recorded on her records that if she made any allegations of rape she was not to be believed. I suspect that may be what is behind that. Your Honour, she goes on to say – and this is the only part I think that the court could possibly consider to form the basis of a statement of claim at all – “I claim aggravated damages….”  There is no indication as to why they should be “aggravated”.   “….aggravated damages and costs back to  1978.” Your Honour, I shall, in a moment, make a Limitation Act point to you.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes.

MR. FISHER: “I seek damages and compensation for  one  Yolande Ann Lindridge, obviously the claimant, and then there are six others, Lauren Ann Lindridge, Thomas Nigel Lindridge, Lauren Health & Safety  -- which I think is the business Mrs Lindridge has connections with  -- Kent Business Network, Lauren Training and Resources, and Patient Support. Of course, the  Court has no power to make orders in favour of those parties if they are not parties to the proceedings and they have given no indication that they wish to be.  “I would like the Courts and medical experts to explain how a man can rape and batter a woman and leave her to die in 1980 and then be allowed to pursue her for 22 years. Is his behaviour normal? What has this man to fear? What is he hiding? I would like to live without fear. I want the right to have a normal life. I want the right to do the work I am good at. I want the right to live in peace. I want the right to have a personal relationship, please.” Those last statements, again, I would ask the court to entirely disregard.

            So we are left, your Honour, with a claim for damages back to 1978 for the claimant herself.  That, I would submit, is the only part of the statement of claim that has any possible merit in it at all.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Am I not right in thinking – amongst all this – I have read quite a bit of this stuff but not since the week before last – but am I not right in thinking that one of our Deputy District Judges struck something out along the same lines?

MR. FISHER: That is absolutely right, your Honour, and that is one of the grounds on which I make the application now, to strike out.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Thank you. You can see why I am slightly confused about this?

MR. FISHER: Yes, perhaps it would help if I gave you a little chronology.

JUDGE MITCHELL:   No, you carry on.  Yes, it might actually. Yes, if you would. As I say, I have read this but it is difficult to get a thread.

MR. FISHER: I have prepared a chronology just so that I can get my own head around what has been happening, your Honour, the 15^th July 1978 the parties married. On the 5^th August 1980 Miss Lindridge alleges that a non-molestation order was made against the defendant. It may be that Mr. Peck cannot say anything about that, but he knows that an order was made at some point around that time, which he did not oppose, but there were no further proceedings in relation to that.  In August 1980, until September 1980, Miss Lindridge alleges that the defendant stalked and terrorised her.  Mr. Peck denies that absolutely. Mr. Peck claims not to have any contact from the claimant from that time onwards, 1980, right up until October 2001. The decree absolute was obtained on the 11^th February 1982. So some four years after they married and two years after the allegations were made.

            Then there is a gap, your Honour, of nineteen years, or thereabouts, until the 17^th October 2001 when claim number MS102915 was issued in this Court.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  What was that about?

MR. FISHER: That was very much along the same lines as the present proceedings. The actual claim was compensation required by the claimant for injuries, losses sustained by the claimant as a consequence of actions by the defendant. “Please can the court freeze the defendant’s current and future assets.” That was accompanied by a statement which is almost exactly along the same lines as that which was filed in these proceedings. It runs to about five or six pages.

            A defence was filed and an application was - - - -

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Is she making allegations like – in 1987 – she obviously was attacked in a house but she is trying to claim that this man is responsible in some way for putting him up to it, I think. That is one of the things she keeps coming back to.

MR. FISHER: 1987?

JUDGE MITCHELL:  I think it is 1987.

MR. FISHER: I am not aware of any particular allegations around that time.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  I think she was probably genuinely assaulted in some way, or there were people round the house, you know. It is probably a real incident, but there is absolutely no evidence that Mr. Peck had anything to do with it at all. But what she seems to be trying to do is say that it is all down to him.

MR. FISHER: Quite, yes, I think that there is some suggestion that she was raped at some point before she met the defendant in 1975.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  In 1975 I think it was, when she was at Portsmouth University.

MR. FISHER: Yes, and then there was another incident in Bermuda, which is coming back to me.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes, apparently, yes, one of the District Judges remembers that one.

MR. FISHER: But, again, there is no link at all with my client.  Your Honour, an application was made to strike out and that was considered on paper by District Judge Millward on the 31st October. The order was drawn on the 2^nd November.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Who won?

MR. FISHER: I do beg your pardon?

JUDGE MITCHELL:  That was 2.10.01.

MR. FISHER:  Yes, 31^st October 2001, yes. That the claim be struck out as disclosing no cause of action. The claimant do pay the defendant’s costs to be assessed if not agreed. Before anything further could be done in relation to that an application was made by the claimant to set aside that decision. It was an order made in her absence, on paper, and she was entitled to apply to set it aside, which she did, and the Court rightly listed it for a hearing, very promptly, on the 3^rd January 2002.

            At that hearing, which was before Deputy District Judge Beach, I represented the defendant and Mrs. Lindridge was in person. Having heard arguments, principally based on a Limitation point, that the only allegations dated back far too long ago, the application was dismissed and Mrs. Lindridge was ordered to pay Mr. Peck’s costs assessed fairly modestly, I would have to say, at £1,000. In fact only £200 of those has ever been paid and that is another ground for alleging that this is an abuse of the process because the costs of the last action have not been settled.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  That is a good argument I think.

MR. FISHER: There was another gap then until the end of last year when my firm received an un-sealed witness summons. We were one of the recipients. One of my partners - - - -

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes, I noticed that.

MR. FISHER:  He knew nothing about Mrs. Lindridge, but it did come to me. Then shortly after that was when this current set started.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  She has actually put in – this is one  of the things I have got to deal with today – has she not put in a notice appealing Deputy District Judge Beach?

MR. FISHER: She has, your Honour. That application was made – it was made orally by her at the last hearing and that in fact I think was what your Honour listed for hearing today as an application for permission to appeal.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  I think she has actually - - - - -

MR. FISHER: But since then I have received an application on the 16^th January. So it was a few  days ago That was applying to set aside the judgment of Deputy District Judge Beach.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  I think she has really got to appeal that, has she not? I mean, she has the right to apply – I think she has appealed – wait a minute, I think I have got it in here.

MR. FISHER: Your Honour, she has applied to set aside the order made in her absence, quite rightly, that application was made at a hearing. It was refused. Her next option would be to appeal that decision, if she so chose to do so.  However, if she wised to she should have sought leave to appeal from Deputy District Judge Beach, which she did not do. Secondly, if she did not seek leave from him she could have sought leave from the Circuit Judge, but she should do so within fourteen days. We are talking about a year.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes, I know, fourteen months since the judgment was entered.

MR. FISHER: Yes.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes. There is somewhere – because I did see it last time – and I referred to it in the order which has not been drawn, I suspect, but may have been – but I did adjourn – I did say that the application by the claimant in respect of permission to appeal the order of District Judge Milward, dated 31.10.01, is adjourned until today, to be heard by me. She is actually technically appealing the order of District Judge Beach who refused to set aside the order of District Judge Milward.

MR. FISHER: Your Honour, I think, understandably, given the circumstances of the last hearing, I think there was some confusion as regards that, with respect. I think the application which she made – and I did not appreciate it myself until I was preparing for this hearing – but the actual application, the appeal, she was talking about in the application dated 8^th January, which was two days before the last hearing, was an appeal against your order to bar additional witness summonses. It was not anything to do with District Judges Milward or Beach at that point. That came out at the hearing I think.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  I know she wanted to appeal my order.

MR. FISHER: Yes.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Because I refused. You obviously picked it up, but she came before me and I said, “Well, how many witness summonses are you wanting to issue?  Eleven.” I went through every single one with her. I mean, the Chief Clerk who is here today was there. We spent about an hour and a half going through each one and I refused on the ground that they had no relevant evidence to give. I gave a judgment about it.  So if she wants to appeal that then it is all on tape.

MR. FISHER: Yes, your Honour, I suppose what she needs to do is to seek permission to appeal against that, but she is fast approaching being out of time for that.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  I think she has said she has appealed that order but I mean - - - -

MR. FISHER: But that appeal should of course lie to a High Court Judge.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  She can go and get it from a Lord Justice of Appeal.  I mean - - - -

MR. FISHER: To the High Court I think her appeal in the first instance – a High Court Judge.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes.

MR. FISHER: One hesitates to share the misery in that way but  - - - -

JUDGE MITCHELL:  That is a good way of putting it actually.   But I think somewhere there is a notice – this is the trouble, you see, when one is just showered with papers. It is very difficult, but I think somewhere there is a notice of appeal against what I assume to be Deputy District Judge Beach’s order. If you remember she said – you know she sort of goes from one case to another – but I had said if she wanted to set aside the District Judge’s order, apparently on the Tuesday when she came before me herself, I said she would have to appeal it. I think she did put in a notice. Wait a moment, this might be it - - - -

MR. FISHER: I have got the front page only. It came by fax late last night, or towards the end of the day yesterday, but that is all that I have got.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  I think this is probably against mine. But I am sure I saw that she was wanting to appeal.

MR. FISHER: Your Honour, I wonder if you are thinking of that application which is the application that was before the court on the last occasion.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes.

MR. FISHER: But that is the application to appeal your decision.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  This is?

MR. FISHER: Yes, if you read the last bit. It is applying for a stay, a transfer, and an appeal against your order.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  The order and judgment of Deputy District Judge Beach is set aside. But she cannot apply to me to set aside his order can she? It is misconceived, is it not?

MR. FISHER: Yes, it is, entirely.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  I thought from what she was saying she had actually appealed – put in an appeal against that which - - - -

MR. FISHER: Not as far as I am aware, no.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  The Chief Clerk from the County Court, or the manager, I am sorry, seems to think there is an appeal. We will see if we can find anything. I mean, this is the trouble.

MR. FISHER: That is the application to appeal. As I say, I have seen the front page, that is all I have seen, just this, it was last night.  There is another one is there?

JUDGE MITCHELL:  I am pretty certain I remember seeing an appeal notice because I referred to it in my order where she seemed to be applying to appeal – she seemed to be applying to appeal District Judge Milward’s order out of time, but in reality, in fairness, what she was really doing was seeking to appeal Deputy District Judge Beach’s order. That is really I think what she was trying to do.

MR. FISHER: Yes.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Somewhere I am convinced that I have seen a notice of appeal.

MR. FISHER: Your Honour, I would submit that in any event – certainly appeal does lie to the Circuit Judge but - - - - -

JUDGE MITCHELL:  The problem she has got is according to Part 52 she has got to show cause  -- she is not out of time on that issue - - - -

MR. FISHER: No, District Judge Milward was the 3^rd January.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  No, but she was out of time really – yes, she is out of time because she is - - - -

MR. FISHER: That is right, it is 2002, a year ago, it is more than a  year ago.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  It was the 3^rd January 2002.

MR. FISHER: Yes.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Now she is seeking to appeal.

MR. FISHER: Yes.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  My recollection is that there is nothing in the notice of appeal about why she is so late.

MR. FISHER: Yes.   In any event, your Honour, I mean, she needs permission to appeal first before she could even appeal and that would only be given where the court considers the appeal would have a real prospect of success or there is some other compelling reason.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Or there is some other compelling reason.

MR. FISHER: Yes, and I would submit that neither applies.  

JUDGE MITCHELL:  It is not clear. I thought about it after I had gone home actually because what she was seeking to do in the notice of appeal was to appeal District Judge Milward’s order of the 13^th November, or it was drawn up then, but the reality was that I was going to deal with it as an appeal from Deputy District Judge Beach’s order, which I think is what it is probably.

MR. FISHER: Yes.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  She is out of time. She is out of time on either.

MR. FISHER: Not just, but by about a year.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  You see she has put in the notice, “I appealed successfully DJ Milward’s order. A Circuit Judge should hear the appeal and this is yet to happen. The hearing on the 3^rd was not valid.” It was.

MR. FISHER: Yes, your Honour, she did not appeal, she merely applied to set aside, as she was given liberty to do,  because it was an order made of the Court’s own motion.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes, that is right. You are quite right. It was an order made of the Court’s own motion.

MR. FISHER: Yes, I think she simply missed the point there, your Honour, that it was not an appeal from District Judge Milward. She was not successful. She merely asked for the order to be set aside and that was listed for a hearing. The hearing took place and her application was refused. If she had wanted to appeal further she should have appealed to a Circuit Judge at that time, by the 17^th January.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes. What I am proposing to do is to treat it as an appeal from Deputy District Judge Beach, because that is really what it is, but to dismiss it on the basis that it is out of time and there are no reasons given – and also there is no merit.

MR. FISHER: Yes, your Honour, I do not think you need to dismiss the appeal, but merely to refuse to grant permission for the appeal because that is the first step.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes, you know there is a good reason for doing that. That is my practise to refuse permission because if I refuse permission there is no way you can go to the Court of Appeal.

MR. FISHER: Yes. 

JUDGE MITCHELL:  We do not want their Lordships having to trouble as much as have had the trouble at Maidstone County Court.

MR. FISHER: That disposes of that.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Could you just collect it. I think really I ought to treat it as a notice of appeal, not against District Judge Milward, but against Deputy District Judge Beach.

MR. FISHER: Yes, Deputy District Judge Milward’s order has fallen by the wayside because it was superseded by Deputy District Judge Beach’s order. That disposes of the proceedings, I think, in case MS102915.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  I will write out (1) the appellant’s notice – it has not actually been sealed or dated. The appellant’s notice of appeal  -- she has got the wrong date. She has put the date the order was drawn. Was it the 17^th October? No, it was not, it was the 2^nd October, was it not?

MR. FISHER: Judge Beach’s order you are talking about?

JUDGE MITCHELL:  No, District Judge Edwina Milward’s order. I think it was the 2^nd October. What I am going to say is the appellant’s notice of appeal, un-dated, against the order of DJ Milward dated - - - - -

MR. FISHER: 31^st October 2001.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  The 31^st October was it?

MR. FISHER: Yes.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Be treated as an appeal – an appeal from the order of Deputy District Judge Beach, dated – it was January 2002, was it not?

MR. FISHER: The 3^rd January I believe. Let me just check it. Yes, the 3^rd January.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  When he dismissed the claimant’s application to set aside the order of DJ Milward, dated 31.10.01. I will just read it out to see if it makes sense. The appellant’s notice of appeal, un-dated, against the order of District Judge Milward, dated 31.10.01, to be treated as an appeal from the order of Deputy District Judge Beach, dated 3^rd January 02, when he dismissed the claimant’s application to set aside the order of District Judge Milward, dated 31.10.01. It is a mouthful, but it is correct.

MR. FISHER: Yes, it is correct.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes, all right.   It is un-dated but filed on the 10^th January I think it was.  It was the 10^th January.

MR. FISHER: Of 2003.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes.     It gets even more complicated. It will be treated as an application for permission to appeal.

MR. FISHER: Yes.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  The order of Deputy District Judge Beach. Two, permission to appeal is refused. I will put in the order – I am looking for permission out of time. I think it might be 52(11). 

MR. FISHER: I think your Honour is probably looking for 52.3(2), application for permission to appeal may be made to the lower court at the hearing at which the decision to appeal was made. So that would be to Deputy District Judge Beach.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes.

MR. FISHER: Or to the Appeal Court, in the appeal notice. It goes on to say that any application for permission to appeal to the Appeal Court must be made in the appeal notice. Of course, Rule 52(5) sets out the time limits for filing the respondent’s notice. That would be the fourteen days.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes.    She is way out of time.  I have just spent a week in the criminal jurisdiction. I can usually put my finger straight on this provision. It is to do with the fourteen days and the fact that you have got to have in the notice – it says quite specifically in the rules – you have got to have in the notice of appeal reasons why you are late. She has not got any basically.   So on that score alone she is not entitled to permission. I am just trying to find out where that is.

MR. FISHER: It is not 52.5? Have you looked at that?

JUDGE MITCHELL:  That is the respondent’s notice according to this.  52.4 says they must do it within - - - -

MR. FISHER: Yes.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  It may be the Practice Direction. That is 1391. I do know that you have to put in your notice the reasons why you are out of time otherwise that alone is good reason for refusing permission.  It is 52(6) I think. “An application to vary the time limit must be made to the Appeal Court. They can extend or shorten the time.” Here it is. It is in the notes in the Brown Book.  “Any application for an extension of time for filing an appellant’s notice must be made in the appellant’s notice itself and the reasons for the delay and the steps taken prior to the application must be set out.” It is in the Practice Direction at paragraphs 5(2) to 5(4). I knew there was a specific provision.   The notice should state the reason for delay and the steps taken. Permission to appeal is refused on the grounds that the claimant has not complied with the Practice paragraphs 5(2)  of the Practice Direction, PD 52, in that she has not asked for an extension of time, nor has she stated the reasons for delay, or detailed any steps – I am sorry, this may sound long winded, but you know, we all know what could happen and it is important that if the matter goes any further that a  High Court Judge picks it up and he can see that I did address my mind to all the issues in the case.

MR. FISHER: Yes.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  And probably save an awful lot more time and trouble.  What I have put is that permission to appeal is refused on the grounds that the claimant has not complied with paragraph 5(2) of the Practice Direction PD 52 in that she has not asked for an extension of time, nor has she stated the reasons for delay, or detailed the steps taken prior to the application being made. I will also put in, for the belt and braces, further, three, permission is refused under  Part 52(3)(6) on the grounds that the appeal has no reasonable prospects of success, nor is there any other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard. Is that all right, Mr. Fisher?

MR. FISHER: Yes, your Honour, because there is no appeal from that part.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Refused permission because there is a non-compliance with the Rules. I have also said that on the merits it is no good. All right?

MR. FISHER: Yes, there is no appeal from that, so, hopefully, you have closed off that avenue.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  That disposes of that. You want me to strike it out?

MR. FISHER: I want to strike out – yes, the claim which I read out to you at the outset – which, your Honour, I would say you have power to strike out pursuant to CPR 3.4.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes.

MR. FISHER: In fact I  think that it discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and it sort of hits every target in the suggested factors that the court should consider in that it is unreasonably vague. I would say that it is. It is incoherent in places. It is.   It is vexatious in the sense that this has already been litigated in the previous set of proceedings – because we are only talking about the - - - -

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Are you quoting from the notes in the White Book or are you quoting from the actual Rules?

MR. FISHER: I am talking from the notes to the White Book.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes, let me have a look at this.    If I am not wrong, this is AS202262.

MR. FISHER: That is correct, yes, your Honour.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  I  was pulling District Judge Jackson’s leg about allowing this claim and then transferring this to Maidstone. I happened to run into him at Canterbury last week.

MR. FISHER: That was a very mean trick I thought.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes, that is what I said.  Four, the particulars of the claim in AS202262 be struck out pursuant on the grounds that it discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim. It is an abuse of the court’s process because she has already had a claim in similar terms struck out.

MR. FISHER: Yes, your Honour. 

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Do you happen to know what that case number was where District Judge Milward struck it out? It is normally just dealt with, is it not?

MR. FISHER: Yes, it is MS102915.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes. She has not failed to comply with any rules or practice directions.

MR. FISHER: She has in fact. There are many.  I could give you some examples - - - -

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Give me your best as they say in the Court of Appeal.

MR. FISHER: Yes, I think it is brought as a Part 8 claim in the first place, which it clearly is not. There is no statement that Part 8 applies. It is a claim for personal injuries and so in the Practice Direction to Part 16 there should be the schedule of loss, there should be the medical report. So there are a number – this is not the strongest point, I think there are many others. If this were the only fault I would not be asking for it to be struck out, but there certainly have been breaches.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes, I have put on the grounds – what I have said is that the claim in AS202262 be struck out pursuant to Part 3(4)CPR on the grounds that it discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, is an abuse of the court’s process in that a similar claim,  MS102915, has been struck out by this court, and there have been breaches of the rules and practice directions. I am not going to specify any more.

MR. FISHER: No, I think that is ample.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Where have we got to?

MR. FISHER: Your Honour, that deals with the application for the injunction. Neither box is ticked to say whether it was made by application impending proceedings or under statutory provision. If it is made in pending proceedings, and the proceedings have gone, it is

just - - -

JUDGE MITCHELL:  It has just fallen, but I had better dismiss it, had I not?

MR. FISHER: Yes. Clearly, it would not be appropriate, in any event, to make it under any statutory provision because, of course, the Family Law Act, I would suggest, would not be applicable in this case where there is not any recent allegations and the Protection of Harassment Act, of course, did not come into force until - - - - -

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Has she put a number on the application for an injunction?

MR. FISHER: Yes, a claim number you mean, your Honour?

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes.

MR. FISHER: It is AS202262.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  So it is in the same - - - -

MR. FISHER: It is in the same - - - -

JUDGE MITCHELL:  So it really fails.  What I will put is this.   For the avoidance of doubt the claimant’s application for an injunction fails as a result of the striking out of claim AS202262 pursuant to paragraph four of this order. Is that all right?

MR. FISHER: Yes.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  What I have said is that for the avoidance of doubt the claimant’s application for an injunction fails as a result of the striking out of the claim AS202262 pursuant to paragraph four of this order. Simply you and I know as lawyers that is the case, but, you know, given that this order is going to be sent to her, I want it to be understood. Whether it is heeded is another matter.

MR. FISHER: Yes.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  All right.

MR. FISHER: Your Honour, the final thing on my shopping list, I suppose, is the Grepe and Loam Order which is the more interesting legal part of the argument.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  It is an interesting point, yes.  Did you manage to track down a copy of that County Court - - -

MR. FISHER: I did, your Honour. I sent you a copy in fact marked for your personal attention.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Did you?

MR. FISHER: I have only got one copy here which I can certainly hand up. In fact the case is that the - - - -

JUDGE MITCHELL:  It may be here. You can see the trouble we have got trying to run a County Court and being besieged.

MR. FISHER: The decision was un-reported but I was able to get in touch with John Larking, the transcription service, and they provided me with a transcript.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Is this Birch?

MR. FISHER: No, this is Ewaite v Slowcomb and Rose. There is a Ebert v Birch. That is the one that refers to this case. Are you looking at the decision of the 30^th March 1999?

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes.

MR. FISHER: There are very many copies.  Ebert v Birch, there are very many points along the way. In particular, on page seven of that judgment, in line 13, you may recall that I was describing to you how the Master of the Rolls, in fact, was describing the contrast between the Vexatious Litigant Application made by the Attorney General and the Grepe & Loam order. He said that the Attorney General is not normally involved in making a Grepe & Loam Order and not only can that order be made by a single High Court Judge, but it can be made in the County Court. It cites Ewait, Slowcomb & Rose, un-reported, and section 76 of the County Courts Act.  In fact in Ewaite and Slowcomb & Rose -- it was a decision of the Court of Appeal. Lord Justice Staughton said at page four, if I read that, he is describing the making of the Grepe & Loam Order. “That is a form of order which seems to have become fairly common in recent times. In my experience it never occurred until about five years ago and County Court Judges seem to have fastened upon it and with the assistance of the associate  we have been referred to the case of Grep v Lome which is the authority for making such an order.  Apparently the problem arises because a litigant in person can go to the front desk, in the  County Court, and issue an application for some interlocutory remedy, without any scrutiny, and later obtain a date for it. This tends to result in the proliferation of interlocutory proceedings. All that the order does is to say that the front desk is not to issue an application without referring the matter to the Judge and that seems reasonable enough.” That was Lord Justice Staughton in the Court of Appeal.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  I always find his judgments very clear and helpful.

MR. FISHER: Yes, your Honour.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Not that I do not find the others so, but he is regarded as being well reputed with the Rules and the procedures of the Court. That is pretty clear, is it not?

MR. FISHER: It is, your Honour.  I also sent to you, but neglected to bring with me this morning, the notes to the old Green Book, I think the 1998 Edition, which I did send into the Court. That makes it very clear that the Court has power under section 76 to make Grep v Lome orders.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes, all right, that is very indicative of a great deal of research on your part, Mr. Fisher, if I may say so.

MR. FISHER: Thank you, your Honour.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  I shall say a bit more at the end to your benefit.

MR. FISHER: Thank you. 

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Can you help me with the words of the order. You see she is going around the County Courts in Kent, is she not?

MR. FISHER: Yes, that is right, your Honour.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  It is not just this court that is suffering. I mean, she has been to Ashford when she issued this. She goes to Medway.  As it happens, one of the Medway District Judges is sitting as a Recorder here and he knows her.

MR. FISHER: Yes.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  It seems to me we have got to stop this.

MR. FISHER: Your Honour, the case of Ebert, which I referred you to earlier, this is the Court of Appeal, the Master of the Rolls was sitting. They were considering the making of an order by Mr. Justice Nueberger of an extended Grep v Lome order. I think the argument in Ebert centred upon the issue of whether the Court had, in addition to powers to prevent litigants making applications in the course of the proceedings – so to stop interlocutory applications – whether it could go further and stop any proceedings being commenced entirely. That was an entirely new claim. That was the point that was considered and decided by Ebert. The Master of the Rolls gives a very clear judgment saying, yes, in his view that can be done. I have set out in my continuation sheet of the application notice, which the court will have, on the second page, paragraphs six, seven, eight and nine, which is a copy of the extended Grep v Lome order, which was being considered by the Master  of the Rolls. I have adapted that obviously to fit the present circumstances.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes, that is quite good actually.    It is relating to this defendant, is it not? I think that is right. I think it has got to be restricted to that.

MR. FISHER: Yes, the order against the whole world, as it were, has to be made under section 42 and on application by the Attorney General - - - -

JUDGE MITCHELL:  That is the Attorney General’s jurisdiction, is it?

MR. FISHER: Yes, that is right.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Can I tell you this. I know there has been a degree of levity in this case --  we are in chambers and there is just you and I – but I am extremely sympathetic to your client’s position. I mean he probably saw this woman nearly twenty years ago and he then finds himself besieged with – you know it is outrageous actually – but equally outrageous is that I am trying to protect the court system, which is funded by tax payers, from what I perceive to be a completely unreasonable and unnecessary course of action by this woman.

MR. FISHER: Yes.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  I can also say, because we are in chambers, that the senior Judge here, who is dealing with the person who is accused of this particular crime, is rather worried about this woman’s activities because if she keeps on opening her mouth in public it can have a great prejudicial effect on somebody’s trial. You know it is a cause for great concern, what is going on in this case. In fact I do not mind telling you, I have been thinking about it, Mr. Fisher, and I am actually going to discuss this matter with one of our presiding High Court Judges. I am so concerned about it.  I can say that has the backing of the resident Judge at this Court.  This just cannot go on. It is an attack on the system, whether she perceives it that way or not.  It is having dramatic consequences all over the place. I mean, the staff at the County Court are besieged with irate people It is none of their doing. Your client is dragged to Court. It is costing him a fortune.  There is a potential prejudice to a serious criminal trial that is either going to take place here or possibly at the Old Bailey. It really is a very serious matter. I hope, although there has been a degree of levity, for those reasons your client is well appreciative that I am seriously – I take it extremely seriously. I mean, I have dealt with – I thought at Bromley, where I sit most of the time, we had enough litigants in person to keep us going with all sorts of problems – but I have to say that this woman takes the gold medal.

MR. FISHER: Thank you, your Honour, for those words. I am sure my client is very appreciative.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes, I hope he is. It is all on tape. If their Lordships have to hear it, they will hear it. You would ask me to make an order really in those terms?

MR. FISHER: Your Honour, I mean the first paragraph obviously restrains the claimant from issuing further applications. So that will hopefully prevent all these interlocutory applications for transfers, and all the rest of it.    The second paragraph says that if she wishes to do so she must apply for leave, ex parte, in writing, to a Circuit Judge, sitting at the Maidstone County Court. In fact in the original version of the order I think it named two specific High Court Judges. Mr. Justice Neuberger and another. I was not sure, your Honour, whether you wanted to name yourself and one other or whether that was too much punishment for you?

JUDGE MITCHELL:  That is very thoughtful. We are all aware – perhaps I should – because I mean I really have read lots of this stuff. 

MR. FISHER: I think the defendant would find it very helpful if a Judge who  is acquainted with the history were to consider that.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes.  One of the things – particularly in the Family Division – that is said about the County Court – is that it is sensible to try and have the same Judge, if you can, and that is one of the advantages, but obviously since I travel around quite a lot it is not always possible. But you can come to me, whether I am sitting in crime at Maidstone, or anywhere else, or whether I am sitting in the civil jurisdiction, Bromley, or here, or at Canterbury, or wherever.

MR. FISHER: If your Honour were to amend that to say to apply in writing to - - - -

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Because we do not sit every day at Maidstone, you see. There is only  a Circuit Judge once a month or something. I could certainly include others. I do not know any other Circuit Judges who have had dealings with it, except Judge Krine has, because he granted her an injunction against the alleged – I do not know whether your client did employ this private detective – you know she has got an order - - - - -

MR. FISHER:  No, we have never heard of him, your Honour.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Really?

MR. FISHER: It is nothing to do with my client, I am instructed.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  This is just bizarre.  She has an injunction against this man. Whoever he is, I cannot remember his name, but it is in the papers.

MR. FISHER: I think his name was – my client had never even heard the name until it was mentioned in court last time. I think that is right.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  He is the one who is supposed to have turned up – was it Folkestone Magistrates Court. She was rambling on about it last Friday. He is the chap who is supposed to have turned up at Folkestone Magistrates  Court when somebody was allegedly being committed for an act of rape and interfered with her in some way. I do not mean physically.

MR. FISHER: No.    I have no instructions on that, your Honour, at all. I do not know about it.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  She can come back to me.   You see if we were a County Court that sat all the time I would make the order that you suggest, but what you do not want is her going up the road to Judge Murdoch, for example, who has never heard of her, or who has no dealings with her.

MR. FISHER: Yes, yes.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Of course, he would not have all the information that we have got.

MR. FISHER: Yes.   So if we were to say, your Honour, if we name only you I suspect that that may be said to unreasonably restrict her rights, but if we said to you   - - - -

JUDGE MITCHELL:  To a Circuit Judge, sitting at Maidstone County Court, or to me.

MR. FISHER: Yes.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Judge Hamilton has had some dealings with her actually. She sits here a bit.

MR. FISHER: We could name the two of you then in the order, if you wish to do that.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  I wonder if she would like that? I find myself able to speak for Judge Hamilton.

MR. FISHER: I am in your hands.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  She sits more frequently than I do in the County Court. She sits virtually full time.

MR. FISHER: If we were to say “a Circuit Judge, sitting at Maidstone Court and if they are sitting either Judge Mitchell or Judge Hamilton” possibly?

JUDGE MITCHELL:  You see what I am anxious to avoid – and this is what she is doing – she is hawking around to the different courts.

MR. FISHER: Yes.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  When we have trapped her down in Kent she will move up to the central county courts, or Reading, or somewhere, so you know we have got to avoid her being able to issue proceedings surreptitiously in Margate, or somewhere, or Reading. She has got to come back to us.

MR. FISHER: Yes. This order will restrain her from doing that.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Such application must be made ex parte in writing to a Circuit Judge, sitting at the Maidstone County Court, or to me. I will put Judge Hamilton in as well and I will tell her. She will not mind. I can speak for her. I cannot always speak for other Judges, but I think she would be not unappreciative of the situation.

MR. FISHER: Your Honour, the next two paragraphs deal with – they are really intended to protect the defendant from further expense and trouble and it says that if any papers are served on the defendant, or his legal representative, without that leave, then he is not required to attend and the application can be dismissed without being heard.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes.

MR. FISHER: Although the next paragraph then does give us an opportunity to make written representations, should we wish to do so, in respect of any application that there may be.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  So you want nine as well on that basis?

MR. FISHER: Yes, please, your Honour.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes.   What I will do is that I will photocopy that and incorporate it with the amendments I have made. I am still debating whether simply to leave – I will see if I can get Judge Hamilton on the phone in the next hour or two. I am not sure where she is at the moment. I think she may have gone back to Bromley. I will either put herself and myself –I may cross out a “Judge at Maidstone County Court”. We do not want some unfortunate person arriving and having no idea about the history of this matter. I am sure the District Judges will put them right.

MR. FISHER: Certainly the wording in the Ebert case was of two named High Court Judges.

JUDGE MITCHELL:   What I am going to do is this. I will make it both of us. That the claimant must make ex parte in writing to His Honour Judge Mitchell or Her Honour Judge S Hamilton Q.C. and it will be dealt with on paper. I am sure that one of us will be around.

MR. FISHER: Yes.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Is that it then? You have got a costs schedule. I have seen it, but I have not read it.

MR. FISHER: I have got one copy here.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  I have definitely seen your costs schedule but I have not digested it. Has it been served?

MR. FISHER: Yes, it has been.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Is that the one?

MR. FISHER: It has been posted. They all look rather the same. It would be the one with the final figure, £2,940. Yes, that is the one.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Then I will look at it. It includes the previous hearing, Mr. Fisher.

MR. FISHER: Yes, it does, your Honour.   Three and a quarter hours. You will remember that.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  I do not need excuses.  Look, the reality is that you are a grade one fee earner.  You are charging a rate – I am not sure of the rates here – I am more familiar with Bromley, but I cannot see anything wrong with that rate. At Bromley that would be a two or a three, being nearer London. So that is a perfectly reasonable rate in my view and I cannot see any reason why the whole thing should not be taxed as it is billed.

MR. FISHER: I am grateful, your Honour. 

JUDGE MITCHELL:  It seems  if I may say so – I know it will seem a lot of money to your client who has been dragged through the courts without any real justification or excuse – but your charges are perfectly reasonable, in my view, and I am not prepared to say otherwise.

MR. FISHER: I am grateful, thank you, your Honour.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes, what I shall do is this.   The claimant to pay the defendant’s costs in the sum of – I will split the VAT – I do not know why - - - -

MR. FISHER: There is a break-down.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  £2,940.50 being £2,510, together with VAT. I know some people can properly deduct the VAT, so I think it is proper to specify it, but that is why I do it. I cannot imagine that it will happen in this case. Is there anything else?

MR. FISHER: No, your Honour.    Any time for payment? I assume it is the standard fourteen days?

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Yes, you want me to put it in. It does not look as though you are going to get it in the light of what you told me earlier.

MR. FISHER: No, it may be a little academic.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  The Chief Clerk is saying to me which courts do we want this order sent to?  I think the Kent Group actually.

MR. FISHER: Kent and Sussex may be because there was a suggestion of Lewes, was there not, at one time?

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Croydon and Bromley  is still part of ours. That will include Croydon as well. Yes, I think we had better.

THE CHIEF CLERK:   We can go further afield and make it the whole South-East Circuit.

MR. FISHER: I am in your Clerk’s hands.  I imagine if it is just a question of posting the order then, perhaps, yes.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  The thing is you see – I do not know that we need to worry too much – because as soon as she starts the proceedings your client will get wind of it and he  will say to you, “We have got an order.” Then you will simply notify the court and they will be alerted to it. I suspect if we do Kent and Sussex, and include Bromley and Croydon - - - - -

MR. FISHER: Yes. Thank you, your Honour.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  No, thank you, Mr. Fisher. Can I say to you – I know that we are in chambers –  it is a pity we are not in open court from some points of view – you ought to be complimented on the way you have dealt with this matter. It is not easy. You have clearly done a lot of legal research and you have been of great assistance to me. Please take the compliments  that are entirely due to you.

MR. FISHER: Thank you very much.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  Thank you very much indeed.

MR. FISHER: Thank you, your Honour.

JUDGE MITCHELL:  I will rise now.

This is to certify that pages 1 to 22  have been produced according to the procedure set out in the AVTS Quality System.

Signed:                              (Christine Kriehn)

1634/H1899