[2025] EWHC 1955 (KB)

The Applicant, Cam Askan, has orally renewed his application for permission to appeal against the Order of His Honour Judge Humphries (‘the Judge’) dated 7 February 2025. In that Order, the Judge declared that an area of land further described below and referred to as the ‘Contested Land’ forms part of the property of the Respondent (‘the Club’) and is therefore owned by the Club’s trustees on behalf of the St Asaph Conservative Club. He also declared that the Club has the benefit of a pedestrian right of way to pass and repass at all times and for all purposes along a path ((‘the Path’) again, described further below) between the Contested Land and High Street, St Asaph; and that save in the case of emergency, the right is exercisable subject to the provision of at least 48 hours’ prior notice (which could be given orally, electronically or in writing). The Order included injunctive relief prohibiting Mr Askan from entering upon or causing damage to the Contested Land, removing or causing damage to the Club’s property located on the Contested Land, or otherwise committing trespass to the Contest Land; or preventing or interfering with the use of right of way of the Path, albeit with permission to lock a gate across the Path providing that the key or combination is provided to the Club. The Applicant’s claims, for harassment, breach of the Data Protection Act 2018, and nuisance, were dismissed.

Mr Askan represented himself at the trial, drafted the (original) Grounds of Appeal and Amended Grounds of Appeal, and at the oral renewal hearing. The Grounds of Appeal outlined 9 grounds. The supporting submissions and skeleton argument were not explicitly tied back to the 9 grounds, and contained separate procedural and related complaints arguing a serious miscarriages of justice (together, ‘the Written Submissions’).

Mr Askan submitted Additional Grounds of Appeal which alleged actual or perceived bias, in ‘the Appellants present and other cases’. The thrust of the perception of bias in the present case was stated to be ‘the unusual and inexplicable outcome’. In respect of recusal, the Additional Grounds alleged ‘prior relationships with opposing counsel or parties involved’, but related in fact to a previous matter complaining about the failure of a magistrate to recuse herself (in relation to a conviction later overturned on appeal). At no point did the Applicant seek the recusal of the Judge. The witness statement supporting the Additional Grounds also made complaints about (a) the Respondent’s solicitors’ initial conduct with respect to a set aside application; (b) HMCTS involvement, in unsatisfactorily dealing with issues relating the receipt of documents; (c) the Applicant’s treatment by a district judge in Wrexham County Court, in respect of a case under the Consumer Rights Act against a vendor of stereo equipment, and the dismissal of his appeal based in part on the fact that the district judge had previously been instructed by the opposing parties’ solicitors; (d) the alleged contamination by HMCTS of a case brought in the Birmingham County Court against solicitors who had given advice about bringing further proceedings against the stereo equipment vendor; and (e) the manner in which the Local Council applied to the First Tier Tribunal (‘FTT’) in relation to an adverse possession claim relating to another portion of land the Applicant claims is his. The FTT Judge found there to be a triable issue and the matter proceeds. The Applicant’s Additional Grounds conclude: ‘I do not believe that all these adverse findings of the Courts, at times egregiously wrong and unfair, are coincidences but can only be a targeted attack by certain employees of the HMCTS directed under Mr Richard Redgrave…. The HMCTS deliberately assigned judge to may cases showed intentional and serious bias against me and I ask that these discussions overturned in my favour’.

The Application for Permission to Appeal was refused by Sir Peter Lane, by Order of 10 June 2025. The Application to rely upon the Amended Grounds of Appeal was dismissed as abusive.

Following the oral renewal application, in response to a request by the Court to provide (a) a copy of the Appellant’s Notice that the Applicant said was lodged (it being different to the version provided by the Applicant in the Appeal Bundle provided to the Court by the Applicant); (b) a copy of one or more Google Earth photos referred to in the Grounds of Appeal, the Applicant provided further substantive submissions relating to supposed wrongdoing by HMCTS, and forwarded an e-mail from the Land Registry dealing with an ongoing complaint, ‘in support of improper conduct of the employees of the Land Registry’. Everything provided by the Applicant has been considered with care.