Rupert St John Webster v John Francis Penley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Miles |
| Judgment Date | 10 March 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] EWHC 1034 (Ch) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CH-2020-000194 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
[2023] EWHC 1034 (Ch)
Mr Justice Miles
Case No: CH-2020-000194
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
PROPERTY, TRUSTS AND PROBATE LIST (ChD)
Royal Courts of Justice
Rolls Buildings
7 Fetter Lane
LONDON
EC4A 1NL
Mr R Trevis appeared on behalf of the Claimant/Respondent
Mr O Wooding appeared on behalf of the Defendants/Applicants
This is an application by Mr Penley and a successor firm, known as WSP (short for Winterbottom, Smith, Penley LLP), which succeeded to a firm of which Mr Penley was a partner.
They apply for the extension of an order made by Morgan J on 10 February 2021. That was an extended civil restraint order directed to Rupert St John Webster. It prevented him from issuing any new proceedings against Mr Penley or Ms Ashcroft arising out of “any dispute with them or concerned or connected with events which occurred in relation to The Priory, Ash Priors, Taunton, Somerset, TA4 3ND or against any solicitor/barrister associate or anyone else connected with the said matters in the High Court of Justice or in any County Court in England and Wales, or issuing any application, appeal or other process in this action or any other action in the High Court of Justice or in any County Court in England and Wales concerning any of the same matters” without first obtaining permission in accordance with the order.
By the order I was appointed as the primary judge to deal with any application made by Mr Webster for permission.
Mr Webster sought permission to appeal the order of Morgan J, but that application was refused.
The order of Morgan J was the third civil restraint order that has been made against Mr Webster relating in broad terms to the same matters.
It is unnecessary to go into the background to the underlying disputes, save to say that they ultimately concern or arise out of the will of Valerie St John Webster and the consequences of that will, which included the appointment of Mr Penley and Ms Ashcroft as executors of an estate which related in various respects to The Priory.
As it was put by Mr Trevis, who has appeared for Mr Webster in this hearing, Mr Webster feels aggrieved that he was originally unlawfully evicted from The Priory. Mr Trevis also explained that having left The Priory, Mr Webster moved to another property which is known as The Bondip Farmhouse and there are currently proceedings on foot relating to that property including an application by the trustees of the estate to evict Mr Webster from that property. I mention this because it features in some of the history.
Although Mr Trevis took me through the history relating to the matter before the order of Morgan J, it seems to me that the relevant events, for present purposes, relate to events which took place subsequent to that order.
Just before the order of Morgan J, Mr Webster commenced professional negligence proceedings against Mr Penley and WSP. Those proceedings related, in very broad terms, to allegations that Mr Penley or WSP had failed to act properly in the advice they had given some years previously concerning the family estate and as part of that, in relation to The Priory.
The defendants applied to strike out the proceedings or for summary judgment and a hearing was listed for 2 December 2021. On 2 December 2021 Mr Webster applied to adjourn that hearing. He also applied to me for permission to make the adjournment application, as it fell within the scope of Morgan J's order. I gave that permission.
HHJ Paul Matthews dismissed the application for an adjournment and then went on to hear the strike out application. Mr Webster applied for permission to appeal against the refusal of the decision of HHJ Matthews to grant the adjournment, and that was rejected by Asplin LJ.
HHJ Matthews gave judgment on 15 December 2021. He made an order on 23 December 2021, giving effect to his judgment. He ordered that the proceedings be struck out and that summary judgment be given. At paragraph 6 of his order he recorded that the claim was totally without merit.
When dealing with questions of costs, HHJ Matthews noted that Mr Webster's obsession with the litigation was not normal, that he was unable to process his continued failure in every attempt he takes to dress his complaint in different clothes, as in any way the result of the lack of merit, whether procedural or substantive, his behaviour in this latest round has, the judge said, been very far out of the norm. The judge also noted that Mr Webster is not naïve or ignorant and is in fact a very capable, experienced litigant.
While those comments were made in relation to costs, it does seem to me that they have a bearing on the view that HHJ Matthews took of Mr Webster's approach, which he described as obsessive.
Mr Webster sought permission to appeal from the order of 23 December 2021. On 18 May 2022 Lewison LJ refused permission.
In May 2022, Mr Webster applied to me for permission under the ECRO to apply for a certificate pursuant to section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1969 from the decision of HHJ Matthews to bring a leapfrog appeal to the Supreme Court. I refused the application for permission to make an application for such a certificate and said in my reasons that the application was totally without merit.
Later in May 2022, Mr Webster made a further application. There was some confusion in my mind about the nature of the application, but Mr Webster explained that he was seeking a certificate pursuant to section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1969 for leave to bring an appeal to the Supreme Court from my decision of 6 May 2022 and that he was seeking permission to make that application. I dismissed that application by order of 19 May 2022 and certified that it was totally without merit.
I have already mentioned that there is litigation concerning a property where it appears Mr Webster still resides, called Bondip Farmhouse. That litigation, again, appears to raise or involve questions about the will of Valerie St John Webster. There have been various orders made in those proceedings to which Mr Penley and WSP are not parties. An order for possession was made in January 2020. In February 2021 HHJ Matthews made an order refusing permission to appeal against the order for possession. He certified the application for permission to appeal as totally without merit. In his reasons, he referred to the apparent overlap in the arguments being run by Mr Webster in the Bondip Farmhouse proceedings and in the proceedings which had been brought against Mr Penley relating to The Priory. In particular, HHJ Matthews pointed out that there were various contentions concerning what had happened to properties previously belonging to the Webster family and that these included allegations concerning The Priory. The order of HHJ Matthews of 1 February 2021 was taken into account as one of the totally without merit orders by Morgan J on 10 February 2021.
As I have said, neither Mr Penley nor WSP are parties to the proceedings concerning Bondip Farmhouse and they are not privy to all of the steps that have been taken in those proceedings. Nonetheless, Mr Webster has, since about July 2022, consistently copied the solicitors acting for WSP, in particular Ms Creech, to correspondence concerning both Bondip Farmhouse and making allegations in relation to The Priory or the matters giving rise to Mr Webster's grievances in that regard. The correspondence in question in part consists of actual and proposed submissions to the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It refers in terms to The Priory — which is described there as “the Taunton property”. It also raises complaints about the way that the properties in the family estate were dealt with and makes complaints about the treatment of the will of Valerie St John Webster.
The correspondence included emails being sent to the Registry of the Supreme Court. These communications included a draft order being sent to Yeovil County Court which...
To continue reading
Request your trial