J90PE914 & K00LU633 - [2025] EWHC 2640 (KB)

The first defendant contends that the behaviour of Ms Saunders in this litigation supports a conclusion that she will do anything to win, and will not accept evidence against her – even if it is incontrovertible. For reasons I set out in the main judgment I have been compelled to reach the sad conclusion that she has deliberately set out to mislead the court, setting out a narrative that is simply untrue and putting forward arguments that I find she must have known to be untrue.

I have also been compelled to reach the sad conclusion that Ms Saunders did not instruct solicitors to act for her in this litigation as she wanted to retain control over the issues in the case and, in particular, wished to control the disclosure of documents. As a former solicitor she understands, or should understand, disclosure obligations and she knows that any solicitors instructed would supervise a reasonable search. She is very familiar with instructing solicitors in other contexts. Ms Saunders said that she had six filing cabinets of documents held within what she referred to as “the Fred West cellar”. Not only was that part of her evidence in shockingly bad taste, and another indication that she is an individual who lacks empathy or feeling for others, but it shows just how poor her disclosure has been. It is a fundamental of the adversarial system of litigation that there must be openness in the disclosure of documents and in Square Global Limited v Leonard [2020] EWHC 1008, it was set out that:

“The client should not be allowed to decide relevance – or even potential relevance – for himself, so either the client must send all the files to the solicitor, or the solicitor must visit the client to review the files and take the relevant documents into his passion. It is then for the solicitor to decide which documents are relevant and disclosable”

Contrary to her obligations to disclose, not only has there been partial disclosure but there has been late disclosure of documents when it has suited Ms Saunders to adduce that evidence. The fundamental problem with disclosure not being dealt with in accordance with the civil procedure rules is that the other parties do not have an opportunity to consider the documentation in detail so that there can be appropriate investigation and response.

This case has taken a great deal of court time and an enormous effort to unravel. It has been important to go through every issue with great care and also to record the evidence of the participants in detail in order that there can be no misinterpretation. All of that has created a disproportionate burden on the court’s resources.

The first defendant’s counsel has acknowledged in his submissions with respect to the strike out application that there is no analogous case to this (or at least none that has been reported). I am not surprised. I have certainly never been involved in a case such as this – either in practice or as a judge.

He refers to the approval of the Supreme Court in Summers v Fairclough Homes Limited [2012] UKSC 26 where Lord Clarke, delivering the judgment of the court, affirmed the court’s “power to strike out the whole or part statement of case at whatever state it is made, even if it is made at the end of the trial …” but also making it clear that “the draconian step of striking out is always a last resort.”

Ultimately, having heard 20 days of evidence and oral submissions, and considering very lengthy written submissions, I am able to reach conclusions with respect to the construction of the agreements entered into by Ms Saunders. I have also been able to reach conclusions on the basis of the evidence presented. Despite the apparent assumption on behalf of the claimant that the court will consider her claim on the basis of an unpleaded case, I have reached my decisions on the basis of the case, and the numerous issues, properly put before the court. Repetition of submissions has not assisted me, and has not made a weak case stronger.

Consequently, while this has been a highly unusual case in so many respects, and has led me to write a judgment which is considerably longer than I would normally write, I have been able to reach conclusions and a fair trial has been possible. The second claimant, on behalf of herself and the first claimant, and all the defendants, have been able to present the various strands of their cases in full detail before the court. There is an extraordinary submission made in writing by leading counsel for the second claimant that the second claimant’s article 6 rights have somehow been infringed. The background is that in response to an allegation made against him of anti-social behaviour, the eighth defendant, Darren Honeywill, played dashcam footage from the second claimant’s own car recording how the second claimant drove her car towards him causing him to have to jump off the access road (over which he had a right of way). Her own dashcam footage recorded her attitude and language towards him some of the other defendants “… you scumbag… you vicious scumbag … your evil father … burn down the whole gypsy place … you stupid bitch…”. I am sure that counsel will have explained to the second claimant that, when making allegations, it can be expected that evidence may be called to rebut those allegations. The fact that happens is not an infringement of article 6 rights. While Ms Saunders may have not wanted the court to see that footage, in the same way as the court did not view the dashcam footage which led to her conviction for assault against Ms Beresford Ambridge, the court does have a duty to consider evidence from both sides in order to understand whether allegations are properly made out.

In the circumstances therefore, while I understand why the first defendant made this application, I am not going to grant it. The issues raised are matters that needed to be dealt with in any event and therefore I do not consider that any costs will arise from this application and its refusal, however I will of course hear submissions on that point.