Case No:  HQ06X03769
HQ06X03802
HQ06X03768
HQ06X03801
HQ07X03181
NEUTRAL CITATION NUMBER: [2008] EWHC 1270 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL

Tuesday, 29 April 2008

BEFORE:

MR JUSTICE MACDUFF

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

BETWEEN:

CHRISTOPHER JOHN HEARNE
Claimant/Appellant
- and -

SECRETARY OF STATE
VISITOR OF IMPERIAL COLLEGE AND OTHERS
Defendants/Appellants

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Digital Transcript of Wordwave International, a Merrill Communications Company
PO Box 1336 Kingston-Upon-Thames Surrey KT1 1QT
Tel No: 020 8974 7300 Fax No: 020 8974 7301
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr Hearne appeared in person
Mr T Buley (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Defendants

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

Judgment
1.	MR JUSTICE MACDUFF:  There are, today, five cases before the court.  In all of them, the claimant is Christopher John Hearne.  I shall refer to them as claims 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

2.	Claim 1 is against Imperial College.  That is numbered HQ06X03769.  In claim 2, the defendants are David Norburn and six other individuals, generally teachers and staff at Imperial College.  Claims 1 and 2 hang together and raise essentially the same complaint.  They relate to events when Mr Hearne was an enrolled post graduate student at Imperial College from 1991 onwards and subsequently and, broadly speaking, his complaints can be summarised as them letting him down in all sorts of different ways.  It is much more than that, of course.

3.	Claim 3 is against the Secretary of State for Education.  That is claim HQ06X03768.  Claim 4, the defendant is the Visitor of Imperial College.  That is claim HQ06X03801.  Claim 5 is Christopher John Hearne against the Visitor of Imperial College, the Secretary of State for Education and the Office of the Independent Adjudicator.  That is claim HQ07X03181.  Claims 3, 4 and 5 hang together.  Here there is complaint by Mr Hearne against the complaints procedure and investigation system run partly by the College and partly under the auspices of the State.

4.	These cases were assigned to Master Leslie, here in the Royal Courts of Justice and Master Leslie has had these cases for a long time.  He has made many orders in the past and listened to many submissions, but today, under the spotlight, are his orders and his judgments of 1 October 2007, 21 November 2007 and 29 January 2008.

5.	As a result of all three of those judgments and orders, the net position is this.  As of the end of January 2008, all these five cases stood struck out in their entirety.  These five cases are before the court, those three decisions are before the court, because there are, in these various cases, five appeals.  In four of those appeals, a judicial decision has already been made albeit on paper to refuse permission to appeal.

6.	Thus, against the orders of 1 October 2007 and 21 November 2007 permission to appeal has already been refused by Mrs Justice Rafferty, but Mr Hearne, as is his right under the appeals procedures, has requested an oral hearing of his applications for permission to appeal.  In those four appeals, that is the state of play.

7.	Those appeals are the 2007 appeals, QB2007/PTA/0669 which is brought in relation to claim 4, QB2007/PTA/0670 which is brought in relation to claim 3, QB2007/PTA/0778 which is brought, I think, in relation to claim 1, but possibly also claim 2 and QB2007/PTA/0779 which is brought in relation to claim 5.

8.	Mr Hearne also filed an appeal against the more recent decision of Master Leslie, the decision of 29 January 2008.  That is the 2008 appeal QB2008/PTA/0050 which I think is principally in respect of claims 1 and 2.

9.	From the above it will be seen how complicated these interwoven and connected proceedings have become.  It has taken a great deal of unravelling to sort it out.  In relation to that fifth and final appeal, there has not yet been a decision as to whether there should be permission to appeal or not.  Whereas in the other four appeals the refusal was made on paper and a renewed application was made, in relation to this fifth of the appeals, the case has been listed before me today for consideration of whether to grant permission to appeal.

10.	Although coupled with that application is a further application made by Mr Hearne for a transcript of Master Leslie’s judgment of 29 January 2008 which he seeks at public expense and if I determine that that transcript is a necessary part of this appeal, he would be entitled to it at public expense.  He also applies, for reasons which may become apparent later in this judgment, for another extension of time to serve some particulars of claim.

11.	I will try now to go through the three hearings in some sort of chronological order rather than deal with the cases claim by claim or appeal by appeal.  I will follow the plan: of looking at 1 October and what happened then and in which cases; looking at 21 November and what happened then and in which cases; and looking at 29 January and what happened then and in which cases.  I should preface all this by saying that I have been able, very carefully, to read the judgments, the transcripts of the judgments, of Master Leslie from both 1 October and 21 November.  So far as I am aware, the judgment of 29 January has not been transcribed, at least not until now and I have to consider whether to make provision for that transcription.

12.	I have already said claims 1 and 2 go hand in hand and claims 3, 4 and 5 go hand in hand, but as has been apparent from Mr Hearne’s submissions today he regards claim 5 as an alternative to claims 3 and 4 and, at one stage, certainly was happy to abandon or discontinue or otherwise not proceed with claims 3 and 4, having remedied what he considered to be a defect in the procedure by beginning claim 5.  Claims 1 and 2 hang together, claims 3 and 4 hang together and claim 5 is in substitution for claims 3 and 4.

13.	Shortly before the hearing on 1 October 2007, the claimant served amended particulars of claim in the claim against Imperial College and the claim against Norburn and others.  I think it was in those circumstances that on 1 October Master Lesley concentrated, as is clear, on claims 3 and 4, though by this time I think claim 5 had been issued.

14.	In relation to claims 1 and 2, notwithstanding that amended particulars of claim had been recently provided, the Master found that the original particulars of claim were inadequate and that Mr Hearne required permission to amend them, that other amended particulars of claim previously served, in purported compliance with earlier orders of Master Leslie, were also plainly inadequate and the further draft amended particulars provided, I think on the morning of the hearing and sent to replace earlier versions, were also inadequate and to be ignored.  He indicated, on that occasion, that Mr Hearne in relation to claims 1 and 2 would be given, what he called, a final chance to get things right and gave him some advice as to the form his particulars of claim should take.

15.	That was all that was done, I think, in relation to claims 1 and 2. But in claims 3 and 4 the Master struck out the entirety of those claims holding that they were wholly without merit.  He found, as is clear from a reading of his judgment, that insofar as there was a semblance of claim against the Visitor in claim 4, it had been brought prematurely, but there were other defects which he found in the claim, having difficulty in determining quite the cause of action was.

16.	He was perhaps even more scathing in his approach to claim 3 against the Secretary of State for Education saying that he was unable to discern (a) how the claim was put, (b) what the cause of action was that was alleged, and (c) how in the circumstances against the background facts, there could be any claim against the Secretary of State for Education.  He, therefore, struck out those claims on their merits saying that, in fact, they were wholly devoid of merit.

17.	Mr Hearne appealed against those orders in claims 3 and 4.  As already mentioned he has been refused on paper permission to appeal, but he now tells me that it was wrong to strike out his claims.  He was happy for them to disappear into the ether because he was substituting claim 5 which had already been issued against the Secretary of State for Education and the Visitor. He also joined the Office of the Independent Adjudicator. Claim 5 was substituted because of certain advice he had been given. He had reached a position where he thought he would start again with a clean slate and try and do it better next time.  It was, therefore, wrong for his claims to have been struck out, but he was content to do without them, but not by means of a striking out, rather by means of his indicating that he did not wish to pursue them.

18.	That, I think, is all I need to say about 1 October.  Merely to note that at the end of the hearing on 1 October 2007, claims 3 and 4 had been struck out on their merits; they no longer exist unless and until I allow permission to appeal today. Thereafter, there would be a hearing of the appeal itself at which they could or might be reinstated.

19.	The hearing on 21 November was concerned principally with claims 1 and 2 against Imperial College and the individual officers.  Early on that very morning, further amended particulars of claim were served and the argument on claims 1 and 2 revolved around whether they should both be struck out in whole or in part.  The claims, certainly the one against Imperial College, is said to fall into two parts, as Mr Hearne has been keen to point that out to me today.

20.	The two parts relate to events pre 2001 and post 2001.  That is because there are limitation issues pre 2001 where there are no limitation issues post 2001. I think I am right in saying that Master Leslie struck out all pre 2001 aspects of the claim. But he also struck out other tranches of the claim for breaches of the Human Rights Act, Fraud Act, Data Protection Act, defamation, breach of contract and other claims. But, as is apparent from his judgment, he held that elsewhere there was potentially the semblance of a claim.  He said this:

“What it really amounts to is this, I think.  Standing back from the case and looking at it as a whole, I fear that if I struck out the claim that Mr Hearne brings against Imperial College, I might very well be the perpetrator of a miscarriage of justice.  I do not say for one minute that Mr Hearne will win.  I have the gravest doubts but I equally have doubts as to whether it would be right for me to strike the case out. I, therefore, decline to do so in its entirety.  I hope that I have been clear in what I consider to be the parts of the claim against Imperial College that remain alive.” 

21.	As to the claim against Professor Norburn and the others he said this:
“I will not strike out the entirety of the claim against Professor Norburn and others.  I will stay it on the basis that the real claim against those people will be pursued in the claim against Imperial College.”

22.	He paid a compliment to Mr Hearne’s presentation of his argument.  His order, which I have before me, insofar as relevant, read as follows:

“Claims in both actions, actions 1 and 2, for breach of the Human Rights Act, the Fraud Act, the Data Protection Act and in defamation in their entirety and in contract and/or for breach of duty and/or any other cause of action arising prior to December 2000 are struck out.  The remaining claims in Norburn and others, claim 2, are stayed until further order, the claimant to file and serve a proposed amended particulars of claim in the first action against Imperial College setting out his claim in respect of causes of action not struck out by 11 January.  If the claimant fails to serve his draft, then both claims are to stand struck out and without further order, the defendant shall have permission to enter judgment with costs.”

23.	Then he listed a case management conference at 10.30am on 29 January, no doubt hoping and intending that he would have Mr Hearne’s properly drafted particulars of claim which he could then case manage in an onwards direction.  He noted that he had given the claimant a last chance to get his pleadings in order on an earlier occasion and noted that this was the further last chance for him to do so issuing an unless order.

24.	Mr Hearne accepts, though he has sought to explain why, that he did not comply with the order and provide an amended particulars of claim.  He has, therefore, to accept, as I think he does, first of all, that the claim stood struck out as from 11 January and that he would have required relief from sanctions which I do not think he sought to obtain.  He gave his explanation of that to me and listened carefully and sympathetically.

25.	Thus it was that when the case came back for a case management on 29 January. Adopting a belt and braces approach, the defendants applied for a strike out order, affirming the earlier order whereby there had been an automatic strike out.  That application was granted. I repeat, I do not have a transcript of Master Leslie’s judgment, but it is difficult to imagine, indeed impossible to imagine, that it would add to the welfare of mankind, or indeed provide assistance to this court to have access to it bearing in mind all that had gone before.

26.	I interpolate into my judgment at this stage the following observations.  Mr Hearne is indeed a hugely intelligent man.  That is clear as a result of many things not least that he was a PhD student at Imperial College. It is also clear from listening to his submissions.  Although I hope he will forgive me for saying, he tends to get, if I can use the phrase, bogged down in the detail knowing this case intimately and obsessively as he does and he is unable to sort out that which is really important and that which is not for the purpose of the appeal.

27.	That then dealt with claims 1 and 2 and the outstanding appeal upon which I have to determine whether to grant permission to appeal or not is in relation to that order, 29 January 2008.

28.	The remaining case was claim 5 and here I need to go back to 21 November 2007.  It was on that occasion that the Master struck out claim 5 in its entirety.  Mr Hearne says to me that that claim should not have been struck out in that way substantially as the Master expressed because it reproduced earlier claims.  It should not have been struck out in that way because the earlier claims had actually been abandoned by him. But with respect to Mr Hearne’s argument, the earlier claims have been dismissed and struck out on their merits.  The Master went on to say that he could not begin to see, in any event, in these claims, if he were wrong about that, that is to say claim 5, what cause of action the claim could have, reiterating his dismissal of the claim on the merit against the Secretary of State and the Visitor, but adding in that there was also no valid cause of action against the Office of the Independent Adjudicator.

29.	I need also to say one more thing.  I listened to Mr Hearne for a long period this morning.  It is right to say that using my case management powers I asked him to limit his submissions to that which was necessary and to impose upon him a time limit where he might otherwise have exceeded it.  It was, I have to say, a generous time limit, but to give him his due he stuck to it and his submissions were, as a result, easier to follow and more to the point than they might otherwise have been.

30.	I not only listened to him but I spent a considerable amount of time last week perusing these files before asking for the case to be listed today and reading the files both last week and last night and this morning.  I also retired after hearing his submissions and read his more detailed submissions attached to his appeal and some of his submissions are so far off beam that it is difficult to deal with them in a sensible way.  His arguments on the limitation point pre 2001 based, I think, largely upon fraud and being under a disability are perfect examples of the learning of amateur lawyers being a dangerous matter particularly when litigants in person, obsessive about their cases, start to try to find quotations from statutes or cases which they hope will support their position.  That is but one example.

31.	I have read his submissions with some care.  As a general observation, part of the problem, I think, is that Mr Hearne feels that he has had a very unfair deal with Imperial College as a body and Professor Norburn and others who were wholly unfair to him, moved the goalposts, changed the rules, did not teach him properly, did not provide him with the course that he wanted and he knows, in his heart of hearts, that he was very badly treated and deserves to be compensated, deserves some redress.  He also knows, in his heart of hearts, that the internal complaints procedure going through various phases before ending up with the Visitor was inherently unfair, that there was chicanery, fraud, concealment going on throughout this period to get Imperial College off the hook.  He knows all those things and he, therefore, believes that he can come to these courts, to the Queen’s Bench Division, and put his heart and soul on the table so that a judge can listen sympathetically to him and give him the redress he craves.

32.	Sadly, it does not work in that way and whatever justification and self belief lies beneath these various proceedings as has been exposed eloquently by Master Leslie and with the assistance of the defendants, his claims are just misconceived, save that in one small respect, Master Leslie thought there might a glimmer of hope but in that case the claimant has not been able to put his finger on the real basis of his claim.

33.	I confess to having a sympathy with Mr Hearne.  He has told me how badly treated he has been.  If he is telling me the truth about that and if there has been anything going on in the background about which he has genuine complaint, I feel of course sympathy for him. But, I repeat he cannot just go to court and put on paper a stream of consciousness.  He has to identify his cause of action, his claim, support it by proper particularised pleading and evidence and bring it before the court in a proper way.  That he has patently failed to do and I have reached the clear conclusion that Master Lesley’s orders are unimpeachable, that what he has done has been the right thing and that there is no discernible ground for appeal against any of the orders in any of these five appeals, in any of these five cases.

34.	In respect of the four renewed applications for permission to appeal (which have already been refused on paper) I make an order that permission to appeal will be refused.  In relation to the fifth, which is being considered for the first time, I also refuse permission to appeal.  I also record that all these appeals are wholly without merit.

35.	That moves me onto the next points.  It goes without saying that there is no point or reason for obtaining a transcript of the Master’s judgment in January of this year and I decline that application as of course the application for an extension of time to file yet further particulars of claim.

36.	The final matter before me today is this. The defendants apply for an extended civil restraint order against Mr Hearne.  They note quite correctly that he has, to date, brought proceedings which are without merit, has made applications which were without merit and has lodged appeals which were without merit.  These appeals themselves are without merit and when I perused the papers last week, and as I read them, it occurred to me that the court would, in all likelihood, act of its own motion to impose an extended civil restraint order.  Mr Hearne might find this difficult to accept, but he now needs to fold his tents. He now needs to accept that this pursuit of what he sees as justice through the courts of England and Wales is at an end.  He cannot be allowed to renew his applications in any way.

37.	He should understand this, that under our appeals procedures, and I can assure him human rights compliant, there is no appeal to a higher court against a refusal of permission to appeal. And so, in relation to all these appeals, I have refused permission to appeal and my order refusing permission to appeal is by law itself not susceptible to further appeal.

38.	These five cases have been struck out. These five appeals have failed by reason of a lack of permission to appeal, and they are now at an end, and he has lost.  The appeal process has been exhausted.  He needs next to understand this; that by reason of the civil restraint order that I am going to impose upon him he cannot, without prior permission of a named judge, issue a new claim against Imperial College or a new claim against David Norburn or any of the others or against the Secretary of State or against the Visitor or against the Office of the Independent Adjudicator or indeed anybody else or any other body, public or private, connected with Imperial College, or otherwise arising out of his dispute with Imperial College, because that is the nature of the civil restraint order which is an extended order.  Mr Hearne cannot renew these claims.  He cannot issue new claims against existing defendants or any other potential defendants concerned with what he considers to be his mistreatment and injustice visited on him by Imperial College, these other defendants or anybody else concerned with it.

39.	I am going to make an extended civil restraint order which will be sent to him when it has been sealed by the court and sent out in the next few days.  It will provide first that permission to appeal in all these appeals has been refused on the merits.  It will provide that he is forbidden for a period of two years whether personally, or through any servant or agent, from issuing any new application, any appeal or other process in any of these actions or from issuing any further proceedings or further applications or processes against any of the defendants in any of the actions or against any other party, touching upon or arising out of his dispute with Imperial College, without first obtaining permission of a named judge.

40.	The named judge will be Master Leslie.  The purpose of that is clear.  Master Leslie knows this case intimately and understands the background.  If he makes any such application and it is refused by Master Leslie, his application may be renewed to me by way of appeal.  But all these applications will be in writing and they will be dealt with on paper alone and, under the terms of the civil restraint order, which is also human rights friendly, he will not be entitled to a hearing.  Everything will be done on paper and, to make it clear, there will be no right of appeal from any refusal which I make to allow him to issue any new application or appeal.

41.	Mr Hearne should also bear this in mind, that he now may do nothing with one exception.  The civil restraint order itself may be appealed.  I do not grant permission to appeal, but he may appeal only the civil restraint order aspect of this order that I make.  His appeal will be to the Court of Appeal and that will be made clear within the order. 

42.	The order prevents him from making any further application or appeal in any of these cases or from issuing any new case in any court whether the High Court or a county court in England and Wales against any of the defendants or any other party touching upon or arising out of the complaint against Imperial College without first obtaining the permission.  The order will last for two years.  That is not to say that at the end of two years he is at liberty to start issuing new claims.  If he does, and if they are without merit, the likelihood is that the civil restraint order will be extended.

43.	The order does not prevent him from applying for permission to appeal the civil restraint part of the order.  He may apply without obtaining the prior permission to appeal against that part of the order and that appeal will be to the Court of Appeal Civil Appeals Office.

44.	That, I think, deals with everything I need to deal with in this case.

Approved as corrected and perfected
Alistair MacDuff
18.09.08