This judgment was handed down remotely at 10:30am on 04/04/25 by circulation to the parties' representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
.............................
Mr Justice Bright:
- This judgment is concerned with the appeal of the Claimant ("Mr Meric"), against the order of HHJ Bird dated 19 August 2024, by which HHJ Bird dismissed Mr Meric's application for a declaration that, since 1 September 2022, he had lacked capacity to conduct litigation under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 ("the MCA 2005") and was a Protected Party, and for an order setting aside all orders made since 1 September 2022. It is also concerned with the application of the second Defendant ("QBE") to set aside my order of 11 February 2025, granting Mr Meric permission to appeal. Finally, it is concerned with two separate applications, one brought by Mr Paul Mercer and the other by Mr Yavuz Ozdemir, each seeking to be appointed as Mr Meric's litigation friend.
- These various applications naturally throw up a number of different issues. However, there is one fundamental question that underpins them all: is Mr Meric able, and was he able in May 2023, to use and weigh information as part of the process of making decisions, in the context of litigation, within the meaning of s. 3(1)(c) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005?
- May 2023 is the critical period because Mr Meric served notice of discontinuance on QBE on 11 May 2023, and HHJ Bird gave permission to discontinue on 12 May 2023. Mr Meric wants the notice of discontinuance to be set aside, on the basis that he lacked capacity.
The underlying claim
- Mr Meric is, or was, a taxi driver. The underlying claim arises out of an accident that occurred when the First Defendant ("Mr Navis") drove into Mr Meric's taxi. The accident was entirely the fault of Mr Navis. Mr Navis has taken no part in the proceedings. He appears to have been uninsured, but QBE has accepted nevertheless responsibility as insurer and thus it is the active defendant to Mr Meric's claim.
- The accident occurred on 13 October 2012. Liability was admitted at an early stage, reducing the issues to causation and quantum. The trial of those issues was set to take place in December 2018, but was adjourned because the trial judge considered that Mr Meric lacked capacity. Ever since then, the case has been bedevilled by Mr Meric's capacity (or lack of capacity), and by associated issues and applications that have arisen out of it or have been at least tangentially related to it.
- The claim is substantial. Among the injuries alleged to have been caused to Mr Meric by the accident are physical injuries to his neck and back, as well as psychiatric injury. A schedule of loss dated 1 August 2017 put past and future losses, including interest, at just below three quarters of a million pounds.
- From the outset, QBE has challenged Mr Meric's case as to the existence of these injuries, as to whether they were caused by this accident and as to quantum. Over the course of the proceedings, QBE's position on this hardened significantly. By its Amended Defence (served in draft in October 2022), it positively denies that the accident caused any injuries at all to Mr Meric, and it avers that he has been fundamentally dishonest in relation to the claim within the meaning of s.57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. In particular, QBE avers that the alleged psychiatric injury is not real, but is the result of "conscious mechanisms, including simulation and factitious behaviour."
- This is relevant as background, but it is not something that the court can decide at this stage. For Mr Meric's benefit, I emphasise that I do not proceed in this judgment on the basis that I accept QBE's suggestions. Nevertheless, it is relevant that QBE's case at any trial would include a positive case as to Mr Meric's dishonesty (subject to permission to amend, which has not yet been decided).
The history of Mr Meric's representation
- The proceedings were commenced in the County Court at Liverpool. Particulars of Claim were served dated 10 February 2016. As I have already said, liability was admitted at an early stage. Initially, Mr Meric was represented by solicitors, using at least two firms during the period leading up to late 2018. By the date for the trial of causation and quantum, all these arrangements had come to an end. Mr Meric was due to be represented at the trial by counsel whom he had instructed directly. However, he dispensed with counsel's services that morning.
- For some of the period leading up to the trial date, Mr Meric had the assistance of a litigation friend – Dr Eldon Worrall, who was appointed as litigation friend by an order of District Judge Benson dated 29 September 2016. However, this arrangement also came to an end. On 22 June 2017, District Judge Benson ordered that Dr Worrall's appointment as litigation friend was ended and that Mr Meric was thereafter to represent himself.
- This appears to have caused concern, in particular as the December 2018 trial loomed closer. At a hearing on 19 November 2018, District Judge Benson (who had made the earlier orders creating and then ending the appointment of Dr Worrall as litigation friend) ordered the Claimant to obtain a report from his GP as to his mental health, in particular his mental capacity under the MCA 2005. Mr Meric's GP, Dr Kalyan, produced a short report in the form of a letter dated 21 November 2018, stating that Mr Meric lacked capacity within the meaning of the MCA 2005.
- This was the background to the decision to adjourn the December 2018 trial. Upon the commencement of the hearing, the trial judge, Recorder Cowan, appears to have been concerned about Mr Meric's behaviour. He concluded that Mr Meric lacked capacity within the meaning of s. 2 and s. 3 of the MCA 2005 in relation to the conduct of the trial. He therefore vacated the trial date and stayed the action, by his order dated 4 December 2018.
- At this point, Mr Meric's original solicitor (acting, I should say, out of commendable altruism) contacted the Official Solicitor. I presume that the Official Solicitor then investigated the case, in particular Mr Meric's capacity. The result was that the Official Solicitor applied to be appointed as Mr Meric's litigation friend, by an application supported by evidence from a psychiatrist, Dr Hyde.
- The application was initially resisted by Mr Meric. He engaged yet a further firm of solicitors, who obtained a report from a different psychiatrist, Dr Moosa. In a report dated 16 June 2019, Dr Moosa opined that Mr Meric was competent and had capacity to conduct litigation.
- However, by the time of the hearing of the Official Solicitor's application, Mr Meric had changed his position. He no longer opposed the Official Solicitor's application. He had also dispensed with the services of his new solicitors, and he therefore appeared in person. The Official Solicitor's application was heard by District Judge Lampkin, who concluded that Mr Meric did not have capacity. The outcome was that the Official Solicitor was appointed as Mr Meric's litigation friend, by District Judge Lampkin's order dated 11 July 2019.
- QBE attended the hearing before District Judge Lampkin and opposed the Official Solicitor's application, unsuccessfully, on the basis that Mr Meric had capacity and did not need a litigation friend. It then sought to appeal the order of 11 July 2019, but the progress of the appeal was very protracted. Ultimately, it was never decided, because it was overtaken by events. I should say that it is not clear that QBE had any legitimate interest in the outcome of the Official Solicitor's application or that it should have played any role in that application: Folks v Faizey [2006] EWCA Civ 381.
- Following the appointment of the Official Solicitor, a fresh firm of solicitors was instructed by the Official Solicitor on Mr Meric's behalf. Over time, however, the relationship between Mr Meric and that firm broke down, as had his relationship with all the previous lawyers involved. His relationship with the Official Solicitor was also strained. This left the Official Solicitor in a very difficult position. She applied for her appointment as Mr Meric's litigation friend to be terminated.
- There were in fact two such applications. The first was heard by HHJ Wood QC (as he then was) on 7 December 2020, at which the Official Solicitor said that a conflict of interest had developed. The parties at the hearing were limited to Mr Meric and the Official Solicitor – i.e., QBE was not present and (as I understand it) was not given any details of it at the time.[1] The application was dismissed. The Official Solicitor appealed.
- Before the appeal was heard, the Official Solicitor issued a fresh application, dated 26 March 2021. By this time, the firm instructed by the Official Solicitor on Mr Meric's behalf had ceased acting and the Official Solicitor was not able to instruct a replacement firm, so the Official Solicitor's position had become even more difficult. The appeal and the fresh application were heard together, by Robin Knowles J, on 26 July 2021.
- At the time of the hearing before HHJ Wood QC on 7 December 2020, Mr Meric had resisted the Official Solicitor's application and said that he did not have capacity to conduct litigation; he therefore wanted to the Official Solicitor to remain as his litigation friend, and he wanted the firm instructed by the Official Solicitor to continue to represent him. However, at the hearing before Robin Knowles J, he took the opposite position. He said that he had lost confidence in the Official Solicitor, that he wanted to conduct the litigation himself and that he had capacity to do so.
- The hearing took place on 26 July 2021. Robin Knowles J handed down his judgment on 4 February 2022, deciding that Mr Meric had capacity.[2] In reaching that decision, he appears to have been greatly influenced by Mr Meric's conduct at the hearing. He said:
"My assessment of Mr Meric's capacity now
29. I have read the various expert reports on the court file that have been prepared over time.
30. There is expert opinion on both sides of the question of capacity. I positively do not wish, in this particular case, to make comment on their substance because some may be referred to at trial (the issues at trial of course overlap with the question of capacity) and the Second Defendant insurer was not before the Court at the hearing.
31. I have however had the additional advantage, as a judge, of seeing Mr Meric represent himself over the course of a day. That is an advantage that is in the live context of litigation itself, and is more recent than the expert opinion.
32. I mean no disrespect when I say that at points the hearing was challenging because Mr Meric has much he wishes to say and about which he feels strongly. But the hearing was not impossible. He was heard, he heard what his opponent needed to say, he replied to that, he answered the court's questions, he made and explained decisions. There was courtesy to the Court and its users from Mr Meric for which I was, respectfully, grateful.
33. A trial would be different, but not so different that it cannot be managed. I have no doubt that, as Designated Civil Judge, HHJ Graham Wood QC, will continue to ensure the selection of a Judge of suitable experience to hear all further stages of this litigation.
34. In the circumstances I conclude that, now, Mr Meric has capacity to conduct these proceedings. It is of the nature of a question of capacity that the answer can change over time. Although in the present case I hope it would be a last resort, my conclusion can be revisited if circumstances change."
- Since then, Mr Meric has conducted the case without legal representation and without the assistance of a litigation friend.
- Following this judgment, HHJ Wood QC made an order on 3 March 2022 for a three-month stay for mediation. Unfortunately, this was unsuccessful – so much so that neither side attended a mediation hearing. Instead, the parties' positions became polarised.
Transfer out of Liverpool; the injunctions against Mr Meric
- It was at about this time that QBE developed its hardened position on causation and quantum and its case that Mr Meric's claim was dishonest. QBE also asserted that Mr Meric had harassed and/or made threats to its expert witness on psychiatry; and that this also happened to QBE's own staff and to its solicitors and counsel. QBE applied for Mr Meric's claim to be struck out, and also sought injunctions to restrain Mr Meric from harassing QBE, its solicitors, its counsel and its witnesses. It was in this context that QBE served its draft Amended Defence.
- Mr Meric responded by applying for the case to be transferred to the High Court and/or to London, and also sought to have various people associated with QBE committed for contempt and asked for injunctions to stop them from approaching or contacting him.
- On 23 November 2022, HHJ Wood KC (as he had now become) made an order dismissing Mr Meric's contempt and transfer applications and giving directions in relation to QBE's applications. Mr Meric's application for injunctions was adjourned.
- On 19 December 2022, an application was issued by Mr Paul Mercer, purportedly on behalf of Mr Meric, to be appointed as Mr Meric's litigation friend. This application was dismissed by HHJ Wood KC on 19 January 2023, in the light of Robin Knowles J's decision that Mr Meric had capacity to conduct litigation.
- I should say at this point that one of Mr Meric's characteristics is that he is a prodigious sender of emails, which he sends, sometimes in very large numbers per day, sometimes to the court but also, frequently, directly to the judge. They often include serious allegations and complaints about those involved in handling his claim – QBE's legal team, the court staff at Liverpool and Manchester and several of the judges at both locations. Mr Meric's behaviour towards court staff has also frequently been less than courteous (although I should say that he is normally a model of politeness at hearings, and was extremely courteous to me). This pattern is of long standing, as I have seen from my review of the historic email correspondence, and as several judges before me have commented.
- In early 2023, it appears that Mr Meric may have taken matters further, paying a visit one evening to HHJ Wood KC's home address. I should say that Mr Meric denies this. It was beyond the scope of the hearing before me to determine the facts in this regard.
- What cannot be denied, however, is that, on 8 March 2023, HHJ Wood KC made an order as follows:
"Upon the Court of its own motion considering this matter on the papers
And upon His Honour Judge Wood KC determining that it is no longer appropriate for him to play any further judicial role in this case and that he should recuse himself save for the purposes of making this order, for reasons of integrity, independence and personal security,
And upon the court further considering that the management of this case and any final determination of outstanding issues, on consultation with the Designated Civil Judge of Greater Manchester and the presiding judge of the Northern Circuit cannot be achieved effectively or fairly at the civil court in Liverpool, in the light of ongoing complaints made by the Claimant against court staff as well as issues of security and integrity,
It is ordered that:
1. This claim, and all outstanding applications associated with it shall be transferred to the County Court at Manchester, Manchester Civil Justice Centre to be managed and heard by His Honour Judge Bird;
2. Because this order has been made without a hearing, any party may apply to the court pursuant to CPR 3.3(5) to vary it or set it aside within seven days of service;
3. In the event that no such application is made the transfer shall take effect at the expiry of seven days;
4. In the event of any application, the matter shall be listed for a 30 minute hearing by telephone before HHJ Howells sitting at the County Court at Liverpool."
- The result was that QBE's applications were not heard in Liverpool. Instead, they were heard in Manchester, by HHJ Bird, on 9 May 2023. There was not time to hear all of them – in particular, QBE's application for Mr Meric's claim to be struck out had to be adjourned (with the result that QBE's application to amend its Defence was also left unresolved). However, a number of other important matters were decided by HHJ Bird's order dated 9 May 2023[3]:
i) Mr Meric's application for a transfer to the High Court in London (already dismissed by HHJ Wood KC) was declared to have been totally without merit.
ii) Mr Meric's application for non-harassment injunctions against various people associated with QBE (previously adjourned by HHJ Graham Wood KC) was dismissed and declared to have been totally without merit.
iii) QBE was granted the non-harassment injunctions that it sought against Mr Meric.
iv) The Court issued a limited civil restraint order against Mr Meric.
- Immediately after the hearing on 9 May 2023, Mr Meric was arrested and interviewed by the police – as I understand it, in relation to his alleged visit to HHJ Wood KC's home address. It is important to stress that the police decided to take no further action. There is no suggestion that Mr Meric had committed any offence. However, while Mr Meric was in custody, he was examined by a mental health professional, who concluded that Mr Meric had full capacity.
Mr Meric's notice of discontinuance
- For some time before the hearing of 9 May 2023, Mr Meric had been indicating that he might discontinue his claim. He stated this several times in the course of the hearing before HHJ Wood KC on 23 November 2022. HHJ Wood KC urged him to take his time and to reflect very carefully before doing anything about this.
- Mr Meric made similar comments at several points during the hearing before HHJ Bird on 9 May 2023. He was again advised by the judge to take his time and reflect carefully.
- On 11 May 2023, Mr Meric served a notice of discontinuance on QBE.
- By an order dated 12 May 2023, HHJ Bird gave permission to discontinue, to the extent required by CPR 38.2(2)(a).
- I must note that, since then, some of the judges who have had involvement in this case have expressed disquiet at the fact that Mr Meric sought to discontinue an apparently substantial claim in which liability had been admitted, in circumstances where litigation capacity might be considered questionable. I refer, in particular, to an order made by Richie J on 13 October 2023. Such disquiet is reasonable, at first glance. However, it must be borne in mind that, for a very considerable period, there have been doubts about Mr Meric's honesty in respect of the claim. More than this, Mr Meric's honesty was made the subject of a formal positive challenge when QBE sought to strike out his claim, and to amend its Defence, in October 2022. This happens to have been very shortly before the hearing before on 23 November 2022, when Mr Meric told HHJ Wood KC that he was considering discontinuing.
- In short, Mr Meric's notice of discontinuance was not the result of a sudden impulse: it was something that he had been considering for several months, and he appears to have taken to heart the advice of HHJ Wood KC and HHJ Bird to take his time and reflect. Nor was it obviously irrational: while I cannot assess whether it was the best course for Mr Meric to take (because that must depend on the true facts regarding the honesty of the underlying claim), discontinuance certainly cannot be treated as something that, in the circumstances, no reasonable person would have done.
Mr Meric's application re lack of capacity
- Mr Meric soon repented and wished to undo the notice of discontinuance. Unfortunately for him, this is difficult.
- On 12 June 2023, Mr Meric issued an application notice seeking relief as follows:
"3. What order are you asking the court to make and why?
Set aside the Orders made since 1st September 2022 to the present date as I lacked capacity (within the meaning of Section 2 and 4 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005) since 1st September 2022 to the present date and the issue of me lacking capacity is still continuing and therefore I am Protected Party. Stay the case for say six months until the court appoints a litigation friend for the Claimant."
- As with Mr Meric's other application notices since February 2022 (when the appointment of the Official Solicitor was terminated), the form was properly filled out and ended with a statement of truth completed in Mr Meric's name and signed by him.
- Mr Meric had no legal representation at this time and no litigation friend. He had realised, having worked this out by himself, that the only way of undoing the notice of discontinuance was if it could once again be declared that he lacked the mental capacity necessary for him to be competent to conduct litigation; and if this could be back-dated to some point prior to the notice of discontinuance. He also realised that this made it necessary for him to assert his own incapacity – which he has since done many times in his numerous emails and lengthy witness statement and submissions, often in stark terms, e.g. "I am lunatic".
- The fact that Mr Meric was able to work this out is of great significance to the main issue before me. My reasons for being entirely confident that he has done so by himself, rather than with the assistance of others, are set out below: in particular where I deal with Mr Meric's repeated assertions that his emails are written by "the carer"; and where I deal with the presentation of the application of Mr Mercer and what that presentation revealed about the dynamic between Mr Meric and Mr Mercer.
The decision of HHJ Bird on 19 August 2024
- Mr Meric's application was heard by HHJ Bird at a hearing on 13 and 19 August 2024. This was not a private hearing. QBE appeared by counsel and contested the application. This was entirely proper, and consistent with the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Folks v Faizey [2006] EWCA Civ 381. Whereas QBE had no legitimate interest in the outcome of the hearing before HHJ Wood QC on 7 December 2020 or in the outcome of the hearing before Robin Knowles J on 26 July 2021 (or in my view, in the outcome of the hearing before District Judge Lampkin on 11 July 2019), it did have a legitimate interest in the outcome of Mr Meric's application to set aside orders including HHJ Bird's order of 12 May 2023 giving permission to discontinue, and thus in the question of capacity that was critical to that application. By appearing before HHJ Bird (and then in the appeal before me), QBE was not intermeddling in a matter in which it was only minimally concerned: cf. Folks v Faizey per Pill LJ at [20] and per Keen LJ at [26].
- HHJ Bird's judgment was given orally, at the conclusion of the hearing, but it is commendably clear and well-structured. HHJ Bird summarised the factual and procedural background, then set out the test under MCA 2025. He noted at [10] that it has two parts or stages: first, whether Mr Merica has an impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain; second, whether, as a result of this, Mr Meric is unable to make decisions. HHJ Bird addressed these matters in that sequence.
- HHJ Bird summarised the expert psychiatric evidence as to Mr Meric, having considered a reasonable volume of written material (which I have also read) and also heard oral evidence from Mr Meric's expert, Dr Moosa, and from QBE's expert, Dr Francis (which I have read in transcript). As HHJ Bird noted at [31]:
"The differences between the experts are limited. They disagree as to the first stage of the test, namely the presence of an impairment of, or disturbance in, the functioning of, the mind or brain. In any event, they agree that Mr Meric can understand information about the decision to be made, that he can retain that information in his mind, and that he can communicate appropriately. The only part of stage two of the decision making process on capacity on which they do not agree is whether Mr Meric can use or weigh that information as part of the decision making process."
- On that crucial question, HHJ Bird preferred the evidence of Dr Francis. However, it is clear from the structure of his judgment that his decision as to the outcome of the application was not based on his assessment of the experts' reports, and still less on his impression of the experts' oral evidence in the witness box. He did not set out his ultimate views on the two experts until almost the end of his judgment, at [59] and [60]. Before that point in the judgment, he had already set out his conclusion that Mr Meric had capacity at the relevant time, at [57] and [58].
- HHJ Bird's decision as to the outcome was based not on the expert psychiatric evidence, but on Mr Meric's interactions with others. This interaction fell into three categories, which HHJ Bird addressed in turn, as foreshadowed in his judgment at [33]:
"There are three types of interaction which, in my judgment, are relevant. Firstly, court hearings before me and other judges, in particular the 9 May hearing. Secondly, email correspondence sent by or on behalf of Mr Meric to the Court, and thirdly, Mr Meric's interaction with police, in particular on 9 May 2023 and 10 May 2023."
- HHJ Bird considered each type of interaction in turn, explaining why, in his view, each confirmed that Mr Meric was able to use and weigh information and make decisions, and had capacity to deal with litigation. The final sentence of [58] is particularly striking:
"My own observation from emails, and in particular from court hearings, is that Mr Meric, plainly and obviously, has capacity."
- I was not present either at the hearing on 9 May 2024 or at the hearing on 13 and 19 August 2024 and so was not able to observe first-hand Mr Meric's conduct at those hearings, just as I did not observe first-hand the oral evidence of the two experts heard by HHJ Bird. However, I have read the transcripts of both hearings, from which I am confident I have a fair impression.
- In some other respects, I am better-off than HHJ Bird.
i) While not able to observe first-hand Mr Meric's interaction with the court at the hearings before HHJ Bird (although I have read the transcripts), I have of course received first-hand his interaction with me, at the hearing before me. Like the various judges before me, I have found this extremely instructive.
ii) I have been able to read not only all the emails from Mr Meric to the court that were available to HHJ Bird, but also the very many further emails that Mr Meric has sent since then.
iii) Some of HHJ Bird's judgment is devoted to the fact that these emails purport to have been sent by "the carer". Here, in particular, I am better-off than HHJ Bird, in that the role of Mr Mercer is relevant. I had the benefit of seeing Mr Mercer in court, and of evaluating the presentation of his application. I found this particularly illuminating.
iv) The significance of Mr Meric's interaction with the police on 9/10 May 2023 is that he was examined by a mental health professional and found to have capacity. I have seen precisely the same materials as HHJ Bird.
- I deal with each of these matters below, albeit not in precisely the same sequences as that followed in the judgment of HHJ Bird.
The legal framework
- The legal framework for questions of capacity is provided by the Mental Health Act 2005.
i) A person must be assumed to have capacity unless it is established that they lack capacity: s. 1(2) MCA 2005.
ii) The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities: s. 2(4) MCA 2005.
iii) A person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision unless all practicable steps to help him to do so have been taken without success: s. 1(3) MCA 2005.
iv) A person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision merely because he makes an unwise decision: s. 1(4) MCA 2005.
- The fundamental test to be applied is set out in s. 2. It has two stages: A Local Authority v JB [2021] UKSC 52
i) The first stage emerges from the Supreme Court's decision at [67] to [69]. It must be considered whether the person is unable to make a decision for himself in relation to the relevant matter [67]. This requires identifying what the matter is that is the subject of the decision – in this case, decisions that arise in litigation and above the decision to serve a notice of discontinuance. It also requires the court to identify the information relevant to that decision.
ii) At the second stage, it must be considered whether the person's inability to make a decision is because of an impairment, of or a disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain. The decision of the Supreme Court established at [78] that there must be a causative nexus between the person's inability to make decisions in relation to the matter and an impairment/disturbance.
- The Act sets out the test for the inability to make a decision in s. 3. This provides that a person is unable to make a decision for himself if he is unable to
i) understand the information relevant to the decision;
ii) retain that information;
iii) use or weigh that information as part of the process of making the decision; or
iv) communicate his decision whether by talking, using sign language or any other means.
- On the facts of this case, it is only the third limb that is in issue. There is no doubt that Mr Meric is able to understand information, to retain information and to communicate his decisions.
Mr Meric's conduct in court
- In placing great reliance on his own observation of Mr Meric's conduct in court, HHJ Bird consciously adopted the same course as Robin Knowles J, as he made clear at [34] and [35]. HHJ Bird evidently had in mind the passage in the judgment of 4 February 2022 that I have set out above, and said at [35] that his own experience of Mr Meric in court entirely echoed that of Robin Knowles J.
i) He said at [36] that Mr Meric:
"… has shown himself to have a mastery of the detail of the case, of its participants, of key dates, and of key events, and he has shown himself well able to respond to points as they arise"
ii) He also agreed with the summary of Dr Francis, who also observed Mr Meric in a court hearing, that Mr Meric:
"… has an intricate memory of this case and a command of detail that is conspicuous. He is capable of articulating his submissions in a coherent manner and to argue his points effectively. He also reacts dynamically to developments during the hearing, pivoting to adopt revised positions as the hearing progresses."
- My own observation of Mr Meric in court was precisely the same. I would add that I found him intelligent and highly articulate. He had obviously prepared very effectively. He was able to speak, making frequent references to previous court hearings and orders, with only minimal references to his notes. He did so with great fluency, covering a lot of points – some good and relevant, others less so, but all addressed in an organised manner. He was able to address and respond to my questions sensibly, then revert to his submissions. He was unquestionably more able than most litigants in person.
Mr Meric's email correspondence with the court
- I have already mentioned that Mr Meric is a prodigious sender of emails. From the records that I have seen, this has been a feature of the case for a long time, at least since Mr Meric began representing himself.
- Because his emails tend to arrive in large numbers, they are inevitably repetitious and overlapping. However, they are not sent at random. When Mr Meric is required to serve something, or when a hearing is approaching, or when QBE has sent something and Mr Meric wishes to respond, he sends a series of emails, each making a slightly different point or attaching different supporting material, but each generally focussing on something that has some relationship to the matter in play. There have sometimes been as many as 60 in a day.
- In his judgment at [43] to [47], HHJ Bird drew out some common features of Mr Meric's emails to the court, by reference to a single example – an email sent at 02:49 on 13 August 2024 (i.e., a few hours before the commencement of the hearing before HHJ Bird). HHJ Bird noted that, in this email as in so many others, it is clear that Mr Meric had worked out what points he wanted to address (in that instance, chiefly various points he disagreed with in the skeleton argument of Mr Higgins), and addressed each in turn, in detail, with reference to previous items of email correspondence and other materials, some of which Mr Meric quoted from and some of which he attached. That email of 13 August 2024 demonstrated the capacity to understand and analyse the document he wanted to address (QBE's skeleton), the ability to set out Mr Meric's own points in an organised manner, excellent familiarity with the materials and the capacity to select from those materials and to make appropriate cross-references. The points that Mr Meric decided to make were not always good ones that were likely to assist him, but that is irrelevant, under MCA 2005, s. 1(4).
- HHJ Bird also noted that, in this particular email, as in many other emails, Mr Meric commented on a regular theme – that there is a conspiracy against him, led by QBE and its legal team but extending to the court system. The main aspect of the perceived conspiracy that Mr Meric chose to address in this particular email was that court orders have been issued that are fraudulent or made up. HHJ Bird noted that Mr Meric's complaints of this kind display a clear ability to recall what happened at the relevant hearing and to compare it with the order. They are (in HHJ Bird's words) always wrong, but not outlandish.
- I agree with HHJ Bird that all these features in the email of 13 August 2024 had been seen many times before, in Mr Meric's voluminous email correspondence. This pattern has continued, if anything become more entrenched, in the months since then. Furthermore, the allegations of a fraudulent conspiracy have spread wider (they now embrace HHJ Bird) and have become, if anything, more serious (there are allegations of racism, blackmail and bribery against both court staff and bench). I should make it clear that Mr Meric has produced not a shred of evidence to support any of these allegations. The email record relied on by him, which I have examined in full, is entirely inconsistent with all these extremely serious accusations.
- Accordingly, while HHJ Bird said that Mr Meric's complaints about QBE's legal team and about the judicial system were wrong but not outlandish, I must add that what is outlandish, however, is Mr Meric's repeated insistence that the matters complained of were the result of a fraudulent conspiracy involving QBE's legal team and others.
- However, while Mr Meric's allegations are outlandish in this respect, they are always expressed coherently and clearly (albeit with no objective justification) and in a way that displays considerable command over the history of the litigation as well as a good level of literacy. Mr Meric is an extremely effective communicator.
Emails written "by the carer"
- It is of course unusual for someone said to be incapable of conducting litigation to send so many emails, especially emails that are (at least from one perspective) forceful and well written. Mr Meric's emails are sent from what appears to be his personal email account, and they are signed in his name. However, they nearly all conclude with words to the effect that they have been written or sent "by the carer". From time to time (including at hearings), Mr Meric states that he is not capable of producing these emails and has not in fact done so – they have been produced "by the carer".
- QBE has long been sceptical of this and has suggested on several occasions that this explanation is simply untrue; the emails are entirely Mr Meric's own work, but he knows that he must pretend to the court to be incapable, hence his references to "the carer". On 25 January 2024, HHJ Bird ordered Mr Meric to identify "the carer".
- As explained by HHJ Bird in his judgment at [38] to [42], Mr Meric failed to comply with this order, only to claim in his email of 02:49 on 13 August 2025 that he had provided this information by a letter, which he attached, purportedly dated 5 February 2024. HHJ Bird set out his reasons for concluding that this letter had not been and could not have been sent on 5 February 2024.
- HHJ Bird concluded that the purported letter of 5 February 2024 was not authentic, at least as regards its apparent date. More importantly, he rejected Mr Meric's contentions that the emails had not been written by him but by "the carer", as he set out at [38]:
"I have come to the very clear view, and find as a fact, that Mr Meric was solely responsible for each of those emails."
- Before me, Mr Meric made no real effort to address or disturb HHJ Bird's conclusions on this point or his reasons for reaching those conclusions. Absent anything further, I therefore would agree with and uphold this part of HHJ Bird's judgment for the same reasons as he gave.
- However, there was an important development at the hearing before me, which in my view confirms still further HHJ Bird's conclusion that Mr Meric is the sole author of all these emails. This arises from the fact that, in the purported letter of 5 February 2024, three persons were identified as the carer. One was Mr Meric's sister, Ahsen Meric, who was said to live in Turkey and not to use the telephone. It therefore is not clear how she could have played a significant role in writing Mr Meric's emails. The others were the two individuals whose applications to be appointed as litigation friends were part of this hearing – Mr Mercer and Mr Ozdemir.
The dynamic between Mr Meric and Mr Mercer
- My order of 11 February 2025, which granted permission to Mr Meric to appeal, also ordered that any person wishing to be appointed as his litigation friend should issue the application by 7 March 2025, and that the application would be heard on the same date as the appeal. I did this because I suspected that it might be informative to be able to assess any prospective litigation friends, while also considering Mr Meric's litigation capacity. So it proved.
- Mr Ozdemir did not attend the hearing. I was told by Mr Meric that this was because Mr Ozdemir had not been able to take the day off work. I made the point to Mr Meric that someone who is not able to attend at court is not suitable to be a litigation friend. Mr Meric accepted this.
- Mr Mercer did attend. This was most interesting. The normal dynamic between a protected party and a litigation friend is that the former looks to the latter for advice and directions. The dynamic between Mr Meric and Mr Mercer was the absolute opposite of this. From first to last, Mr Meric told Mr Mercer what to do, and Mr Mercer meekly complied. Mr Meric told Mr Mercer where in court to sit (he said that Mr Mercer's breathing was too loud and was distracting him so made Mr Mercer sit as far behind him as possible), when to drink a glass of water and, above all, what to say. When the time came for Mr Mercer to make his application, Mr Meric had to tell Mr Mercer that he should now come to the front of the court to address me.
- I asked Mr Mercer if it wanted to act as Mr Meric's litigation friend. He clearly had no idea what this simple question meant or how to respond. I repeated the question, more slowly. Mr Mercer still looked uncomprehending, and he turned to Mr Meric for help. Mr Meric told him to say yes, and Mr Mercer obediently did so.
- I then asked Mr Mercer why his application indicated that he wanted all correspondence to do with the case to be sent to Mr Meric's home address, rather than to his own home address. He again looked stumped for an answer and turned to Mr Meric for help. He was told by Mr Meric to say that this was because he had been concerned that any post received at his house might be interfered with by his children, so delivery to Mr Meric's address would be safer. Mr Mercer just about managed to repeat an answer to this effect.
- Needless to say, I found that explanation preposterous – but I regard that as Mr Meric's fault, not Mr Mercer's. My clear impression was that Mr Mercer had no understanding whatsoever of the court process or, more generally, what was going on around him. If anyone needed protection and assistance, it was him, not Mr Meric. I drew the application to a close on the basis that it would be cruel and unnecessary to subject Mr Mercer to any more questions that he was bound to be unable to answer for himself. By this point, Mr Meric accepted that Mr Mercer was not suitable to be a litigation friend.
- I record these details in full because, although this was a brief part of the hearing, it was extremely rich in significance.
- First, it was utterly obvious that it was inconceivable that Mr Mercer was capable of writing any of the long and detailed emails sent from Mr Meric's email account. This confirms the conclusion I would have arrived at anyway, i.e., that the sole author of those emails was Mr Meric.
- Second, it follows that the letter purportedly dated 5 February 2024 was not merely inauthentic in its date, but deliberately untruthful in its contents.
- Third, Mr Mercer did not apply to be Mr Meric's litigation friend because he considered that Mr Meric needed assistance, and he could provide it. He is clearly dominated by Mr Meric and applied simply because Mr Meric told him to.
- Fourth, Mr Meric likewise did not want or expect any real assistance form Mr Mercer, who he must have known would be incapable of providing it. He selected Mr Mercer as his litigation friend because he knew that Mr Mercer would do whatever he asked.
- Fifth, this reflects the fact that Mr Meric does not believe that he needs help from a litigation friend. Although he needs for tactical purposes to pretend to believe in his own lack of capacity, he does not want assistance from anybody else and considers himself entirely competent to conduct litigation without assistance, making his own decisions. This is what he intended to do, using Mr Mercer as his puppet.
- Sixth, the manner in which that Mr Meric responded to the way that Mr Mercer's application unfolded – i.e., by acknowledging that Mr Mercer was not suitable to be a litigation friend – was a striking example of his ability to take note of, understand and react to developments during the hearing, on a live basis, in the litigation context. Along with other, similar examples, it demonstrated Mr Meric's capacity to make decisions and his competence to conduct the litigation.
The assessment of Meric on 10 May 2023
- HHJ Bird regarded the fact that Mr Meric was found to have full capacity on 10 May 2023, while in police custody, as significant. I was less impressed by this. The purpose of the examination on 10 May 2023 was to determine whether Mr Meric was capable of understanding the police caution and of answering questions. There is no real resemblance between the mental capacity required for those purposes and that required for competence to conduct litigation such as the claim in these proceedings.
The expert psychiatric evidence
- While a number of other psychiatrists have examined Mr Meric at various times, the two whose evidence was admitted as expert evidence for the hearing before HHJ Bird, and from whom he heard, were Dr Moosa and Dr Francis.
- Mr Higgins submitted on QBE's behalf that I should not reach a different view from that of HHJ Bird because he had the benefit of oral evidence from the experts, and I have only been able to read the transcript of their evidence. However, I do not get the impression from his judgment that HHJ Bird's conclusions were affected by the oral evidence of the experts.
- HHJ Bird did not feel able to rely on Dr Moosa's evidence, because Dr Moosa's initial view (on 16 June 2019) was that Mr Meric had capacity, and it was not clear why Dr Moosa changed his mind within a few months (by the date of his next report, of 9 October 2019). Furthermore, in his later reports (all made in 2023 and 2024), Dr Moosa was instructed directly by Mr Meric, was not given all the critical materials and appeared to have been pressurised by Mr Meric to opine that Mr Meric lacked capacity. I agree with this assessment.
- HHJ Bird felt more confident about relying on Dr Francis, but did not address the fact that Dr Francis had not been able to examine Mr Meric.
- One important difference between the two experts' conclusions was that Dr Moosa considered that Mr Meric suffered from persistent delusional disorder. Dr Francis's principal reason for rejecting this diagnosis was that Mr Meric positively claims to be delusional, whereas a personal who is truly delusional believes their delusion, and so will not accept that they are deluded.
- My own view of Mr Meric is that he genuinely believes that there is a conspiracy against him, involving QBE's legal team, the court staff and some members of the judiciary. This belief is a delusion, in the sense that it is contrary to all the evidence, and it is so irrational that no reasonable person could share it. Furthermore, it is persistent, in that Mr Meric has held this belief since at least 2019 – certainly, long before it became tactically advantageous to him to assert a lack of capacity.
- These views relate to purely factual questions. Above, all they relate to the question: does Mr Meric genuinely believe that there is a conspiracy against him? This is not a question that only a psychiatrist can answer. It is the kind of questions that judges routinely have to decide.
- While I feel able to decide whether Mr Meric genuinely belies that there is a conspiracy against him, I am not qualified to say whether Mr Meric suffers from persistent delusional disorder, or any other psychiatric disorder, and I am very aware of this. Nevertheless, I find it difficult to share Dr Francis's reluctance to accept that Mr Meric holds delusional beliefs. He clearly does.
- I recognise the logical force in Dr Francis's position that a person who is truly delusional will not accept that they are deluded. However, my view is that Mr Meric does not genuinely think that his belief that there is a conspiracy against him is a delusion. I have read many emails written (as I have found) by him saying that he is deluded, and he said this to me several times in court. However, he also referred several times to the supposed conspiracy – for example, that QBE's legal team had been "deceiving the court, continuously coming up with court orders, sitting down with judges" in order to defeat him.
- My firm impression was that Mr Meric knew that he had to say that he was deluded, in order to demonstrate his own lack of capacity and thus succeed in having his notice of discontinuance set aside; but that he does not in truth believe that there is no conspiracy against him, or that he is deluded, or that he in fact lacks capacity.
- However, the mere fact that Mr Meric holds delusional beliefs is not sufficient for him to demonstrate a lack of mental capacity under MCA 2005. Indeed, even if (contrary to Dr Francis' opinion) Mr Meric holds these delusional beliefs because of an impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain, that is not sufficient. What matters is whether, because of this, he is unable to make decisions within the meaning of ss. 2 and 3 of the MCA 2025.
The Plus Dane litigation
- Both parties, for different reasons, at various times drew my attention to Mr Meric's litigation against Plus Dane Housing – a matter before the County Court at Liverpool with claim reference no. L70LV482. I did not find this really assisted either way.
Conclusion on Mr Meric's mental capacity
- I have noted above that A Local Authority v JB [2021] UKSC 52 suggests that the court should first ask whether the relevant person can make a decision for himself in relation to the relevant matter; if so, it should then ask whether this is because of an impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain.
- Mr Meric's application fails at the first stage. He is able to make decisions in relation to the litigation against QBE in this action. In particular, he is able to use and weigh information as part of the process of making such decisions. I have observed him doing precisely this, live, in the course of the hearing before me.
- My observations mirror those of HHJ Bird in May 2023 and August 2024, which were in turn consistent with those of Robin Knowles J in July 2021. Mr Meric did not suggest that his mental capacity had changed since September 2022, and I see no reason to suppose that it has. I therefore am confident that he was also able to use and weigh information, and to make decisions, in May 2023, when he served his notice of discontinuance.
Disposal
- Mr Meric's appeal is dismissed.
- QBE's application to set aside permission to appeal is dismissed.
i) My order giving permission provided that an application could be made by 16:00 on 18 February 2025. QBE did not do so until 28 February 2025.
ii) More importantly, Mr Meric's appeal had a real prospect of success, in circumstances where a number of judges have formed the view that Mr Meric did not have full capacity – in particular, District Judge Benson, Recorder Cowan and District Judge Lampkin; and it is apparent that HHJ Wood KC also inclined to this view, without having to decide the point. That some other judges have in the past taken a different view, and that the appeal has ultimately failed, are matters that do not affect this.
iii) There was another compelling reason for the appeal to be heard, namely that this was the only practical way of addressing Mr Meric's points – in particular, by allowing him to make submissions in support of his appeal and thus enabling the court to assess his mental capacity. When I gave permission, I had in mind that this was what had happened before Robin Knowles J and HHJ Bird, and it had greatly informed the decisions made by those judges. I considered it necessary to be in the same position as them.
- Mr Mercer's application to be appointed as Mr Meric's litigation friend is dismissed.
- Mr Ozdemir's application to be appointed as Mr Meric's litigation friend is also dismissed.
What I would have done, if I had concluded that Mr Meric lacked capacity
- If Mr Meric's appeal had succeeded, and I had concluded that Mr Meric lacks capacity and lacked capacity in May 2023, that would have led to the setting aside of HHJ Bird's order of 12 May 2023 giving permission to discontinue. However, I would still have dismissed the applications of Mr Mercer and Mr Ozdemir. The result therefore would have been that the claim remained alive, but that it could not presently be progressed by either side, under CPR 21.3.
- I note that, when in a similar position in December 2018, Recorder Cowan stayed the action, gave liberty to the Claimant or a suitable person acting on his behalf to apply for the appointment of a litigation friend, and directed that if no such application were made within six months, QBE could apply for the action to be struck out. I would probably have done something similar, but with a much shorter time-limit.
- I mention this because I have no doubt that Mr Meric will seek to appeal this judgment to the Court of Appeal. If he does so, he must understand (and I am confident that he will understand) that there is no point appealing, or even seeking permission, unless someone suitable is available to be appointed as litigation friend.
Coda
- Early in the morning on the date set for hand-down, Mr Meric sent an email stating that he was seriously ill, was on his way to hospital and wished to withdraw his appeal from the order of HHJ Bird dated 19 August 2024.
- I was and am extremely sorry to receive this news. However, I cannot decide not to hand down judgment in the light of that email. This is not merely because the judgment is ready. In part, it is because there are other applications, not made by Mr Meric, that need to be disposed of and which can only be explained by reference to Mr Meric's appeal. However, it is also because I would only be able to accede to Mr Meric's indication if I could be sure that he was and is acting with the necessary mental capacity. I therefore would need to explain my conclusions in that regard, in any event. The only convenient way of doing so is by handing down my judgment.
- That said, I reiterate that I am extremely sorry to have been told that Mr Meric is ill, and I wish him well.
