[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Pattison v Clarksons & Steele [2002] EWCA Civ 1551 (16 October 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1551.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 1551

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT
LEEDS COUNTY COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE BEHRENS)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2 Wednesday, 16 October 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE MANTELL: I would like to begin the judgment by paying tribute to the applicant, Henry Michael Pattison, for the courteous manner in which he has presented his application. He has gone to enormous trouble to present his case through written submissions and the provision of many documents covering (at least part of) the history of this unhappy matter.
2. The present applications are for permission to appeal two orders of His Honour Judge Behrens, sitting in the Leeds County Court dated 25 and 28 June2002. In addition, Mr Pattison would wish certain orders to be made which, in his submission, would tend to right a previous injustice (or series of injustices) and reflect the good of the public weal.
3. In the 1960s Mr Pattison invented a game called "Combinations". In 1986 he approached British Home Stores with a view to them taking it on and marketing it. British Home Stores did not respond to that approach, but the following year Mr Pattison found that British Home Stores were selling a game called Pick-a-Pair which, in his estimation, corresponded very closely to the game which he had earlier invented. In his view the game infringed his copyright. He instructed Clarksons & Steele to issue proceedings against British Home Stores for breach of copyright consequent upon a writ was issued and served in January 1990. His solicitors did not inform the defendants that Mr Pattison was in receipt of legal aid.
4. In October 1990, British Home Stores provided evidence that Pick-a-Pair had been manufactured in Hong Kong as a result of which it seems to be accepted that Mr Pattison's claim was no longer tenable. Whether that is right or not, he was advised by counsel that such was the case. In the years that followed, Clarksons & Steele attempted to settle the action on the basis that it should be discontinued with no order as to costs. Again British Home Stores did not respond.
5. On 3 September 1992 Mr Pattison's legal aid certificate was discharged. Mr Pattison told his solicitors that he intended to continue with the action in person. On 19 July 1993 British Home Stores issued a summons to strike out the claim for want of prosecution. In November of that year District Judge Heath ordered that the claim be struck out on the basis of inordinate and excessive delay in the prosecution of the case and, further, on the basis that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action.
6. The district judge ordered Clarksons & Steele to pay British Home Stores' costs incurred between 26 January 1990 and 3 September 1991 on the basis that the firm had failed to inform British Home Stores that Mr Pattison was legally aided. Both Mr Pattison and British Home Stores appealed this decision. That appeal was heard on 4 and 5 August 1994 by a circuit judge who allowed the appeal against the wasted costs order but dismissed Mr Pattison's appeal, holding that the claim be struck out for want of prosecution.
7. In March 1995 Mr Pattison issued proceedings against Clarksons & Steele alleging negligence. Clarksons & Steele applied to stand out the action on the ground that it was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. That application was heard by a District Judge on 26 August 1997. The District Judge held that that part of the claim should be struck out but allowed one allegation of negligence to remain. Both sides appealed the order. Those appeals were heard by His Honour Judge Walker in November 1997. He dismissed Mr Pattison's appeal, Clarksons & Steele's appeal being allowed. That resulted in the claim being struck out in its entirety and Clarksons & Steele were awarded a substantial sum, upwards of £20,000, by way of costs. It is in that order that the present unhappiness has its genesis.
8. Mr Pattison appealed to the Court of Appeal. His allegation was that Clarksons & Steele had been negligent in failing to tell BHS that he had been legally aided, and failing to advise him in 1993 of the risks of continuing with the action. The matter came before Swinton Thomas LJ and Thorpe LJ on the application for permission. The application was refused. The leading judgment was given by Swinton Thomas LJ and is relied upon by Mr Pattison.
9. Mr Pattison then issued further proceedings against Clarksons & Steele. They were struck out in April 2000 by the District Judge as an abuse of process. A further costs order was made against Mr Pattison, this time in the sum of £1,198.
10. On 13 July 2000 His Honour Judge Cockcroft dismissed Mr Pattison's appeal against the judge's order and refused permission for a further appeal (page 66 of the bundle). Additionally, the judge ordered that any court charged with further claims by Mr Pattison should first address the outstanding costs orders before considering those further claims.
11. On 4 August 2000 Clarksons & Steele issued a statutory demand for the unpaid bill of costs, totalling some £28,000, inclusive of interest. On 7 August Mr Pattison applied to have the demand set aside on the basis that he had a claim against Clarksons & Steele which, if successful, would allow the damages recovered to be set off against their claim for costs.
12. On 16 October 2000 a third action was commenced against Clarksons & Steele by Mr Pattison, and also against counsel who had appeared in previous proceedings. That action was stayed by order of the District Judge in accordance with the earlier order which required the question of costs to be addressed first.
13. On 2 March 2001 a District Judge ordered that the action against Clarksons & Steele remain stayed. Mr Pattison was invited to reformulate his allegations of negligence against counsel. The court treated the matter as an application for summary judgment by counsel and struck out the claim. Costs were awarded against Mr Pattison, this time in the sum of £2,297. Leave to appeal was refused. Mr Pattison appealed the order by notice dated 7 March 2001.
14. On 13 March 2001 District Judge Fairwood granted a bankruptcy petition against Mr Pattison. He told Mr Pattison that his ongoing cases against Clarksons & Steele would not be affected by the bankruptcy order and he could continue to pursue them. However, on 26 March 2001, the court wrote to Mr Pattison to tell him that the District Judge had reconsidered the matter and had concluded that, until a trustee in bankruptcy had been appointed, the Official Receiver was acting as trustee and therefore had the conduct of ongoing cases. He was told that, unless the Official Receiver assigned the cases back to him, Mr Pattison would have no further say.
15. On 18 June 2001 His Honour Judge McGonigal dismissed Mr Pattison's appeal against the order (see judgment at pages 91- 95 of the bundle). He noted that Mr Pattison's sole ground of appeal was that he only consented to the bankruptcy order on the basis of the District Judge's assurance that he would still be able to pursue the ongoing actions. However, it was the Circuit Judge's view that the bankruptcy order had not been by consent and, moreover, that the comments attributed to the District Judge had only been made after the order. He further held that the views of the District Judge were, in any event, irrelevant as the debt was due and owing and there was, therefore, no basis for an appeal.
16. On 13 December 2001 Jonathan Parker LJ refused permission to appeal on the basis that he did not consider that the bankruptcy petition could be successfully resisted. That judgment is included with the papers. The Lord Justice further ordered that Mr Pattison be refused permission to appeal to the House of Lords.
17. Mr Pattison contends that on 10 June 2002 he was told by the Official Receiver's office that they had no objection to him making a further claim against the bankruptcy order. He therefore sought directions from the Leeds County Court. The date of then application is not entirely clear, but it would appear to be 19 June 2002.
18. On 18 June His Honour Judge Behrens refused the request but invited him to set out in writing the order he was seeking, against whom the order was sought and the grounds for seeking it. Mr Pattison did that on 24 June 2002. He requested that the court annul the bankruptcy order of District Judge Fairwood of 14 March and District Judge Spencer's order of 16 June staying the negligence action.
19. I turn to the two sets of directions given by His Honour Judge Behrens which are the subject matter of the present application for permission to appeal. Mr Pattison informs me that he has copies of the two orders made by His Honour Judge Behrens and it is not, therefore, necessary to read them out.
20. The judge ordered that Mr Pattison's claim against Clarksons & Steele remain struck out following the decision of Swinton Thomas and Thorpe LJJ. He stated that there could be no further complaint about the claim. He said that, in the absence of assignment by the Official Receiver, Mr Pattison was not competent to make his applications. He further said that the Leeds County Court had no jurisdiction to deal with Mr Pattison's complaints criticising members of the Court of Appeal, and although he had jurisdiction to deal with the application to annul the bankruptcy order, he declined to do so on the basis it was out of time and there was nothing in the material that the order should not have been made.
21. After calling for Mr Pattison's bankruptcy file, the judge gave further directions on 28 June 2002, indicating that, in his view, the appeal against the bankruptcy order had been fully dealt with by the courts and an application for a further review was an abuse of possess. He dismissed the application.
22. Mr Pattison now seeks permission to appeal against those various orders. His grounds of appeal are contained in his notice. They are not particularly well structured and not altogether easy to follow. That is understandable given his lack of any kind of legal training. Mr Pattison's grounds are that the judge was wrong in not permitting him to continue to pursue his ongoing cases and, in particular, he should have been permitted to conduct the appeal against District Judge Spencer's order of 2 March 2002.
23. I have spent considerable time going through the voluminous documents. I have struggled to see whether or not there could be some basis for granting permission to Mr Pattison. I am very conscious of the fact that he has lived with these proceedings in their various guises over a long period of time. He is emotionally involved and heavily so. I am quite sure that his concentration on these matters has interrupted his enjoyment of life throughout the many years over which they have continued. Sadly, I can find absolutely no basis for the grant of permission to appeal. Any appeal on the grounds advanced, to which I have referred only in the most general terms, would be doomed to failure and could only result in a further order for costs against Mr Pattison.
24. This application is refused.