Lebrooy v LB Hammersmith & Fulham & Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MRS JUSTICE COX |
| Judgment Date | 27 April 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] EWHC 1976 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | 1HQ/06/0202 |
| Date | 27 April 2006 |
[2006] EWHC 1976 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand London WC2A 2LL
MRS JUSTICE COX
1HQ/06/0202
THE CLAIMANT appeared IN PERSON
MR JOHN NORMAN (instructed by Messrs Barlow Lyde & Gilbert) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
In their five application notices issued on 8 March 2006 the first and second defendants apply for each of the claimant's five separate claims brought against them to be struck out under CPR 3.4 on the basis that the Particulars of Claim disclose no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, or alternatively for summary judgment to be entered against the claimant under CPR 24 on the grounds that the claims have no real prospect of succeeding. Application is also made for a civil restraint order to be made against the claimant pursuant to CPR 3.11.
Before me the defendants are represented by Mr John Norman of counsel. The claimant, who has at all times been acting in person, has himself issued a number of application notices, four of which are also listed for hearing before me, in which he applies for an order to compel the defendants' solicitors to comply with the CPR and to reply to his letters within a reasonable time, and for appropriate directions in the litigation.
There are one or two procedural irregularities. There appear to be six sets of proceedings involved altogether, claims ending with the numbers 82, 85, 84, 92, 93 and 107, all of which were issued in October 2005. Acknowledgements of service have been filed. Claim number 82, however, has no Particulars of Claim attached to it in my bundle and it appears on its face to repeat a previous claim issued against the same four defendants but which was then discontinued in October 2005. There is no defendant's application notice in respect of that claim. There are also two claims, numbers 85 and 93, where the claim form was served late and for which an extension of time will be required if they are to proceed.
It was, however, agreed at the outset of the hearing that I would deal first with the defendants' applications and in that respect the relevant facts are these: as I have stated, this claimant has acted in person throughout. The claims allege, essentially, defamation arising out of his ill health, including previous mental illness, and his involvement in 2003 and 2004 with health care and social work professionals employed by the first or second defendants and named as individual defendants in the various claims. The first and second defendants alone are before the court in these applications but the claims against them are brought on the basis that they are vicariously liable for the actions of the individual, named defendants. I can, therefore, deal with the matters raised so far as all the defendants are concerned.
The Particulars of Claim all take a similar form, although referring at various points to different personnel and events. The most helpful summary of the relevant medical background, however, is to be found in a report from Dr Andrew Montgomery, Specialist Registrar in Psychiatry, dated 22 November 2004 and his subsequent letter in June 2005, which reports were requested by the claimant himself. These reveal that the claimant first became unwell in May 1999 and was referred by his GP to the emergency psychiatric service where he was found to be suffering from depression.
During 2001 and 2002 he presented on a number of occasions to Accident and Emergency at the Charing Cross Hospital with throat and head pain, which was much later on diagnosed as temporal mandibular joint syndrome, a stress related condition causing pain in the neck and face. He was found to be suffering from depression and anxiety, attempted suicide on two occasions and was referred to the relevant community mental health team and diagnosed in August 2002 as suffering from a major depressive disorder. In autumn 2003 his ill health prevented him from attending his mental health team appointments and he was admitted to the Charing Cross Hospital as a voluntary patient in November 2003. In January 2004 he felt he had been discharged from hospital inappropriately and made complaints against the second defendant, refusing to attend appointments with the consultant psychiatrist, Dr Phelan.
In May 2004 the manager of the flats where the claimant lives wrote to the mental health team alleging that the claimant had been harassing other residents and that the police had been called on two occasions. A Mental Health Act assessment was arranged in June 2004 when it was felt that the claimant was showing signs of hypomania. On 30 June he was admitted to hospital under section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983. His mood settled after he was given appropriate medication and he was discharged from hospital on 26 July 2004 with a diagnosis of bipolar affective disorder, which is a mental illness within the meaning of the Act. Dr Montgomery stated that between 2001 and August 2004 the severity of the claimant's illness had rendered him incapable of managing his affairs adequately, but when reviewed in clinic on 7 September 2004 the claimant was then showing no symptoms of mental illness.
The claimant applied for and received copies of his medical notes from the second defendant in October 2004. All the claims he now brings arise from what he describes as "maliciously false defamatory allegations in the medical notes that were published by the named defendants." Each of the five claims alleges against the defendants both defamation and an unspecified "tortious conspiracy". At the end of each set of Particulars of Claim the claimant also alleges violation of his rights under articles 3 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights as a result of the defamatory remarks. However, it is clear that his primary cause of action is in defamation, which was the only cause of action that the claimant referred to during his lengthy oral arguments before me. The other claims seem to me to add nothing of substance to the issues.
Each claim relates to a separate incident, each derived from documents which form part of the claimant's formal clinical records. Mr Norman took me through the particular pleaded matters in each claim. The basis of the claims appears to be the passing on to other professionals of information by Mental Health Act approved social workers relating to the claimant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Lebrooy v LB Hammersmith & Fulham & Others
-
DD v Durham County Council and Another
...of success (i.e. one that is other than merely fanciful): see e.g. Seal v Chief Constable of South Wales [2007] UKHL 31; Lebrooy v London Borough of Hammersmith [2006] EWHC 1976 (QB); Johnston v Chief Constable of Merseyside [2009] EWHC 2969 (QB). 2 The matter was adjourned by Lang J on 20 ......
-
DD v Durham County Council and Another
...one that is other than merely fanciful): see eg Seal v Chief Constable of South WalesMHLR[2007] MHLR 282; Lebrooy v LB HammersmithMHLR[2006] MHLR 253; Johnston v Chief Constable of MerseysideMHLR[2009] MHLR 343. 2. The matter was adjourned by Lang J on 20 February of this year, so that a nu......