KB-2024-003652 - [2025] EWHC 1900 (KB)
King's / Queen's Bench Division of the High Court

KB-2024-003652 - [2025] EWHC 1900 (KB)

Fecha: 24-Jul-2025

THE PROCEDURAL HISTORY

THE PROCEDURAL HISTORY

35.

Mr de Wilde drew my attention to the following:

(1)

The Claimant initially instructed Knights Plc to represent him in these proceedings. The Claim Form was issued on the last day which was within limitation, on 25 October 2024.

(2)

The Claimant then waited until almost the end of the four month period of validity of the Claim Form to serve proceedings, on 25 February 2025.

(3)

On 21 May 2025, after the Particulars of Claim had been served, the Defendant had acknowledged service and served his current application, and Collins Rice J had made her Order dated 2 May 2025, the Claimant informed the Defendant that he would be acting as a litigant in person and Knights plc filed a Notice of Change.

(4)

The Claimant is an experienced litigator, who has been involved in a large number of legal disputes, in many of which he has represented himself. Mr de Wilde submitted that many of the characteristics of the Claimant’s correspondence and conduct in relation to the dispute concerning the Company are reflected in his correspondence and conduct in these proceedings, including: (a) unjustified threats of regulatory complaints against the Defendant’s solicitors (email of 27 May 2025); (b) failing to follow procedural rules by filing a Second Witness Statement, which makes serious but unparticularised allegations of malice and acting subject to a conflict of interest against the Defendant, but which otherwise adds nothing meaningful to the evidence (10 June 2025); (c) suggestions that the litigation be conducted in accordance with his own timetable rather than that set by the Court (email of 11 June 2025); (d) further irrelevant and unjustified attacks on the Defendant’s bona fides (email of 11 June 2025); (e) irrelevant references to the demands of his own professional commitments (email of 18 June 2025); (f) increasing complexity and costs by failing to comply with Court ordered Directions and by insisting on including lengthy and irrelevant material in the hearing bundle; (g) having been told, correctly, that he needed to make an application in that regard, contacting the Court via email to seek permission to rely on his Second Witness Statement (email of 19 June 2025); and (h) extensive correspondence causing resources to be expended by the parties and the Court, while himself referring frequently to the costs of litigation.

36.

Although I understand why Mr de Wilde considered it sensible to refer to these matters, in my view they are of no direct relevance to the issues that I currently have to decide. The only point that I do consider to be of relevance is that the Claimant was professionally represented – it would seem by Simon Smith, a partner at Knights plc with great experience of defamation litigation – at the time when the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim were served, and accordingly there is no basis for extending latitude to him in respect of those documents on the footing that he was acting in person.