[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Knight v Sage Group Plc [2002] EWCA Civ 1862 (28 November 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1862.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 1862

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2 Thursday, 28th November 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE JONATHAN PARKER: This is an application by Ms Miriam Knight that an order made by Chadwick LJ on 7th May 2002 dismissing her application for permission to appeal from an order made by McCombe J on 4th December 2001 be set aside and the application for permission reinstated.
2. By his order McCombe J dismissed Ms Knight's application to set aside an order made by HHJ Taylor, sitting as a judge of the High Court in Newcastle, on 2nd May 2001, whereby he struck out a claim brought by Ms Knight against her former employers, Sage Group plc ("the Company"). HHJ Taylor also made an order restraining Ms Knight from making further applications against the Company.
3. In a short judgment dismissing her application for permission to appeal, Chadwick LJ recorded that Ms Knight had not appeared in order to make her application and that enquiries of the Civil Appeals Office had disclosed no communication from her which suggested either that she was intending to attend but had been delayed or that she was not intending to attend and (in that event) the reason for her non-attendance. In those circumstances, Chadwick LJ dealt with the application in Ms Knight's absence and dismissed it. However, he went on to say that, having read the papers, he was satisfied that it was an application which would have no prospect of success.
4. In paragraph 5 of his short judgment Chadwick LJ said this:

"His Honour Judge Taylor, when striking out the claim in May 2001, gave a detailed judgment explaining why he took the view that this claim was an attempt to re-litigate old matters which had already been the subject of earlier decisions, including decisions in this court. Mr Justice McCombe was satisfied that there was no real prospect that the proceedings would have any chance of success and, accordingly, in the exercise of his discretion, did not think it right to reinstate them."

Ms Knight seeks to reinstate the application today on the footing that there was indeed a good reason for her non-attendance before Chadwick LJ on 7th May 2002.

5. Before addressing the application to reinstate, I should put it in context by referring shortly to the long history of litigation which culminated in the order made by HHJ Taylor.
6. Ms Knight has commenced a number of actions against the Company alleging breach of contract and personal injury. The earlier actions foundered for reasons given by Sedley LJ in a detailed judgment delivered on 23rd March 2001. The latest action against the Company, which was commenced on 13th December 2000, was struck out by HHJ Taylor on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success and that Ms Knight's prosecution of the action rendered it an abuse of the process of the court. HHJ Taylor characterised the latest action as an attempt to re-litigate claims raised in other actions going back many years. As to Ms Knight's conduct of the litigation, HHJ Taylor had this to say (on page 11 of the transcript of his judgment, delivered on 2nd May 2001, at line 30):

"The conduct of litigation by this claimant has been vexatious throughout. She has refused to comply with numerous court orders, she appears when she chooses to appear, she applies to vacate when it suits her to make such an application. What she is consistent in is in always seeking permission to appeal."

Later in his judgment HHJ Taylor said this (at page 12, line 13):

"It is well known, going back many, many years, that, when a claimant brings an action, the whole of the case should be brought forward, and that stems from a decision of Henderson v Henderson as far back as 1843. It is well known that a claimant should not be allowed to litigate issues which have already been decided by a court. The main thrust of the issues have already been decided. Insofar as she seeks to bring any fresh matters before the court, and they are very limited in scope, those are matters which she could have brought a long time ago, if she had chosen to do so."

7. Unsurprisingly in the context of the history of the various actions which Ms Knight has brought against the Company, she did not attend the hearing at which HHJ Taylor struck out her latest claim. True to form, once again, she subsequently applied to McCombe J to set aside the order striking out the claim and to reinstate it on the ground that she was unable to attend the hearing before HHJ Taylor for health reasons. In his judgment, McCombe J assumed, in Ms Knight's favour, that there was a good reason for her non-attendance before HHJ Taylor on 2nd May 2001 and he further assumed that she had acted sufficiently promptly in seeking to set aside HHJ Taylor's order. However, McCombe J concluded, as HHJ Taylor had done, that her claims had no reasonable prospect of success. For that reason, he dismissed the application.
8. As I indicated earlier, Chadwick LJ reached the same conclusion.
9. Once again, however, as she has done so many times before, Ms Knight now seeks to reinstate her application for permission to appeal, on the footing that there was a good reason for her non-attendance before Chadwick LJ. True to form, once again, she has not attended the court this morning in order to make that application.
10. Before me is a letter dated 4th November 2002 from a Dr Winnie Stack of the Oxford Terrace Medical Group, in which she refers to the demands placed upon Ms Knight by the court, both in terms of the submission of documentation and her attendance at court "at short notice", and expresses the opinion that these demands are having an adverse effect on Ms Knight's health. The letter continues:

"I would be grateful if the Court could take this into account in the further administration of Ms Knight's case.

In particular, it would be helpful if the Court could liaise with Ms Knight over the scheduling of Court hearings and deadlines for the submission of documentation.

I would also wish to inform you that Ms Knight will be unable to attend Court on the 6th of November 2002 on health grounds."

I understand that the application to reinstate was originally listed for hearing on 6th November but that, in the light of the doctor's letter, that hearing was vacated and relisted on Tuesday of this week, 26th November 2002. However, Ms Knight then provided the court with a doctor's note stating that she was suffering from chicken pox and would not be able to attend court until after 27th November. Accordingly, the application to reinstate was refixed for today, 28th November.

11. As I said a moment ago, Ms Knight has once again failed to appear. Yesterday she provided a further sick note, stating that she should not work for a further six weeks. On the basis of that note, she applied for a further adjournment of her application to reinstate. I refused that application on the papers, stating that if, as has happened, she did not attend the hearing this morning, the matter would be dealt with in her absence, on the basis of the documentary material already provided.
12. I accordingly proceed to deal with the matter in her absence.
13. The application to reinstate is dismissed. Quite apart from the waste of time and money which Ms Knight's repeated non-attendances have caused, I, like Chadwick LJ and McCombe J, can see no prospect whatever of her proposed appeal succeeding. It is on that basis that I dismiss the application. In addition, in order to avoid, so far as possible, any further waste of time and of the court's resources, I direct that any application to reinstate this application or any further application to reinstate the application which came before Chadwick LJ must be made to me on paper within 14 days from today. Any such application will be dealt with on paper, thereby avoiding the need for a further oral hearing.