Case No: HQ12X01035
Neutral Citation Number: [2013] EWHC 1972 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 10/07/2013

Before :

MR JUSTICE SWEENEY
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :

	ALAN THOMPSON	Claimant	
	- and -		
	SEAN STARR and Others	Defendant	

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr Thompson appeared in person
Mr Walker-Nolan (instructed by McMillan Williams) for the Defendant 

Hearing dates: 5 November 2012
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
MR JUSTICE SWEENEY : 
Introduction
1.	On 26 October 2012, set against a somewhat complicated background of earlier hearings, this case was listed before Eady J for a Case Management Conference. The Claimant did not attend – asserting that he was unwell. In the result, Eady J stayed the proceedings.
2.	In the days that followed the Defendants discovered that on 28 October 2012 the Claimant had taken part in the British Kendo Association (“BKA”) national competition, which was plainly inconsistent with what had been asserted to Eady J.
3.	In the result, the case was listed before me on 5 November 2012. Again the Claimant failed to attend, but sought an adjournment - relying on his instruction of Mr Edward Lock of Messrs Lock and Malborough.
4.	At the conclusion of the hearing I struck out the claim with costs and indicated that I would reserve both my reasons for doing so and my decision as to the summary assessment of the costs - pending enquiries by the Defendants’ solicitors, Messrs McMillan Williams, of Mr Lock.
5.	On 6 November 2012 Messrs McMillan Williams informed the Court that they had contacted Mr Lock who had indicated that:
i)	He had been contacted by the Claimant some months before, but that that contact did not extend beyond a preliminary enquiry and brief exploration of the facts of the case. Neither Mr Lock nor the firm had been retained or instructed.
ii)	On or about 3 October 2012 the Claimant had contacted Mr Lock again by telephone and had sought representation – explaining that a trial (clearly the trial of this action) was listed for the end of the month and that he required assistance in relation to it. Mr Lock had explained that he was away from 4 October 2012 and thus would not be able to represent the Claimant.
iii)	Mr Lock had not heard from the Claimant since.
6.	I accepted the accuracy of the information and did not require any further enquiries to be made.
7.	I now give reasons for my decision to strike out the claim, to award costs to the Defendants in respect of the hearings on 26 October 2012 and 5 November 2012. In addition, I have summarily assessed the relevant costs as being £7,174.10 and £2,787.60 respectively - making a total of £9,961.70p.
Background
8.	In about May 2011 the Claimant, then a long-term member of the British Kendo team, was elected to the Board of the British Kendo Association and was appointed as the BKA Events Officer. The Defendants variously are or were officers of, or are otherwise closely connected with, the BKA.
9.	In early 2012 it came to the attention of the first Defendant (then the Great Britain Kendo Squad Manager) and of the second Defendant (then the BKA Squad Trainer) that the Claimant owed a substantial sum of money to Mr Junichi Tashiro (a revered Japanese Kendo teacher) and that he had also failed to bank some £260 in cash collected on a squad training day in Liverpool in August 2011.
10.	In the result, and following various discussions with the Claimant, it was decided to suspend the Claimant from his role as Events Officer, and to de-select him from the British Kendo team.
11.	On 7 March 2012 the Claimant appeared ex parte before Sharpe J and sought an injunction preventing the Defendants from suspending him and from de-selecting him from the team. Upon the Claimant undertaking to issue a Claim Form, Sharpe J adjourned the application until 14 March 2012 – so as to enable the Defendants to attend to make representations, and to enable the Claimant to provide further evidence of the rules of the BKA and particulars of any breaches relied on.
12.	When the case was called on before Simon J on 14 March 2012 the Claimant had failed to comply with his undertaking to Sharpe J. However, subject to issuing a Claim Form by 4 p.m. that day, he was relieved from any sanction. Having heard argument Simon J ordered, amongst other things, that:
i)	The Defendants were to serve any evidence in reply by 4 p.m. on 21 March 2012. 
ii)	No further proceedings were to be taken in the case thereafter pending an appeal by the Claimant under Article 11.13 and Article 13 of the constitution of the BKA.
iii)	The application should not be restored for hearing before 26 April 2012.
13.	Later on 14 March 2012 the Claimant duly lodged a claim against the first five Defendants seeking to restrain them, until trial or further order, from bullying, harassing, victimising or discriminating against him, and from dismissing him, or purporting to dismiss him, from his position in the team or his role as Events Officer.
14.	Notwithstanding Simon J’s Order that no further proceedings were to be taken in the case, on 23 March 2012 the Claimant applied ex parte to Keith J for an injunction restraining the Defendants “from disseminating unseemly information about the Claimant to the members of the BKA pending the outcome of his appeal under Article 11.13 and 13 of the constitution of the BKA”. At the hearing before Keith J the Claimant contended that the filed Order of Simon J had been incorrectly recorded. In the result, Keith J ordered that a revised draft be filed by 4 p.m. on 28 March 2012 and thereafter placed immediately before Simon J, and that if, in consequence of any alteration, the Order of Simon J did not prevent it, the Claimant’s application for an injunction would be heard on notice to the Defendants not later than 3 working days after Simon J’s decision.
15.	It appears that Simon J did not alter the filed Order of 14 March 2012.
16.	On 21 May 2012 the Claimant lodged an application for an injunction preventing the Defendants from travelling to, or requiring them to return from, the 15 World Kendo Championships, and requiring the Defendants to send the Claimant to the Championships all expenses paid.
17.	The application, and a further application for judgment in default, were heard ex parte by Walker J on 22 May 2012. He refused both applications, and gave detailed directions as regards any restored hearing pursuant to Simon J’s Order of 14 March 2012.
18.	On 29 May 2012 the Iaido Bu Complaints Committee rejected the Claimant’s complaint under Article 11.13 and Article 13 of the Constitution of the BKA. Thereafter, the Claimant appealed to the National Committee Appeals Committee of the BKA.
19.	Also on 29 May 2012, and notwithstanding the failure of his application seven days before, the Claimant made an application before Thirlwall J to commit the Defendants and members of the Iaido Bu Complaints Committee for contempt. The Defendants were represented by counsel and solicitors. The Claimant sought an adjournment in order to obtain legal representation. An adjournment was granted until 12 June 2012, with a requirement that in future the Claimant served all correspondence, applications or evidence concerning the proceedings on the Defendants’ then solicitor.
20.	On 12 June 2012 the adjourned hearing came before His Honour Judge Seymour QC (sitting as a Judge of the High Court). The Claimant appeared in person. Counsel appeared for the Defendants. Judge Seymour concluded that Walker J’s Order of 22 May 2012 had refused in its entirety the Claimant’s application notice of 21 May 2012 (and that thus there was no Order that the Defendants were in contempt of).  He ordered that the claim issued on 14 March 2012 should be stayed until the final resolution of the appeal being pursued by the Claimant under the Articles of Association and Constitution of the BKA. The Defendants were awarded their costs, including those relating to the hearing on 29 May 2012, summarily assessed in the sum of £6,500. The Claimant’s oral application for permission to appeal the Order as to costs was refused.
21.	On 20 June 2012, by an impressive twenty three page written ruling, the National Committee Appeals Committee upheld the findings of the Appeal Committee and found no grounds for an appeal. The Committee recommended that the bu initiate the process to remove the Claimant as Kendo Events Officer in accordance with the correct procedures as set out in Article 11 of the BKA Constitution. The Committee also concluded that the Claimant had undermined the morale of the GB team and the confidence shown in him by the team manager and coach. However, the Committee made no recommendation in that regard – leaving selection of the Squad and teams to the Manager and Coach.
22.	On 4 July 2012 the trial of the claim filed on 14 March 2012 was set down for one day in the 3 day window from 24 October 2012.
23.	On 31 July 2012 the Claimant filed an Appellant’s Notice in relation to the Order of Judge Seymour made on 12 June 2012. He did not, however, file all the necessary documentation. On 16 August 2012 the Claimant filed some of the missing documents. The following day he was sent the appropriate form to request a transcript of judgment at public expense. The form was never returned.
24.	As already indicated above, the Claimant failed to attend either the hearing before Eady J on 26 October 2012 or the hearing before me on 5 November 2012.
25.	On 23 November 2012 the Claimant’s appeal against the Order of Judge Seymour was dismissed by Deputy Master Meacher.
My Reasons
26.	It was clear from an analysis of the papers in the Court File that, even making fulsome allowance for the fact that he was a Litigant in Person, the Claimant had conducted this litigation by deliberately sailing close to, and at times beyond, the wind.
27.	It was equally clear that, following the written ruling of the National Committee Appeals Committee, the Claimant’s prospect of success at trial was, at best, fanciful.
28.	It was also evident that on both 29 October 2012 and 5 November 2012 the Claimant had sought to place misleading explanations before the court as to the reason for his non attendance.  That was confirmed as to 5 November by the further information supplied the following day.
29.	It was for the combination of those reasons that I struck out the claim with costs.
30.	As to the quantum of costs I have concluded that the sums claimed in the amended Statements of Costs are appropriate, and have thus assessed costs in the sums set out in paragraph 7 above.
31.	Finally, I must apologise profusely for the delay in the provision of this judgment.