[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions >> Gaskin v Norwich City Council & Ors [2013] EWHC 623 (QB) (22 March 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/623.html Cite as: [2013] EWHC 623 (QB)

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		22 March 2013

Sir Raymond Jack :

Renewed application for permission to appeal from the order of His Honour Judge Darroch dated 30 April 2012.

Application to set aside a general civil restraint order made against Susan Gaskin by Mr Justice MacDuff on 15 August 2012.

1. On 12 March 2013 I heard a number of applications made by Miss Susan Gaskin in various actions in all but one of which she was the claimant. I dismissed her applications in an action brought against her by Flagship Housing Group and in an action brought by her against the Norfolk Constabulary. I reserved my decisions in respect of two further applications.. This judgment deals with those.
2. First, Miss Gaskin renewed her application for permission to appeal against the order of His Honour Judge Darroch dated 30 April 2012 ,whereby he dismissed her application to set aside the order of District Judge McLoughlin made on 17 January 2012 striking out 29 actions brought by her. Permission to appeal had been previously refused by MacDuff J on the papers. MacDuff J dealt with all Miss Gaskin's applications in a written judgment dated 13 August 2012, which goes into the detail of her litigation.
3. 26 of these actions were brought against the Information Commissioner and, as Miss Gaskin explained to me, related to the Commissioner's handling of complaints by her concerning the mishandling of her personal data by others. I have considered the provisions of Data Protection Act 1998. I am satisfied that no claim for damages lies against the Commissioner in the circumstances asserted by Miss Gaskin. These actions were correctly struck out, and permission to appeal is refused.
4. The defendant in action 1IR65772 is the Norwich City Council City Hall Legal team. In action 1NR00885 the defendants are Norwich City Council, English Heritage, the Church Commissioners, the Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England, the Dean and Chapter of Norwich Cathedral, and the Bishop of Wakefield. The defendant in 1IR70799 is Lowell Portfolio. Miss Gaskin told me that the claims in each case were for the misuse of her protected data. I have considered the claims forms and the particulars of claim in each. There is no coherent, comprehensible statement as to what the case is that is advanced against any of these defendants. The district judge was right to strike out the actions. Permission to appeal is refused.
5. Second, as I have said, in his judgement dated 13 August 2012 MacDuff J set out the conduct of Miss Gaskin as a litigant. He concluded that it was appropriate to make a general civil restraint order. Miss Gaskin applied to me to have the restraint order set aside. She was entitled to do that as the order had been made in her absence. But I am satisfied that for the reasons which MacDuff J set out in his judgment the order he made was amply justified. Miss Gaskin's application to set it aside should be dismissed.