KB-2023-000128 - [2025] EWHC 2085 (KB)

The second stage to consider why the default occurred. It is insufficient to say that the applicant is unwell. He has been able to write and fill a strident and trenchant statement dated 28 April 2025. In the hospital records, it is noted that Mr Zelman ticked the box marked "No" in relation to whether he or anyone else is a vulnerable party. Ritchie J stated that there should be medical evidence led if the basis of further extension or basis of seeking to interfere with the appeal is medically related. No such medical evidence has been filed.

Instead, the applicant makes a serious complaint about the court service's administration of proceedings. He has stated in terms that he intends to report the court service to the Minister of Justice. That is his right. He has previously alleged that Recorder Lambert KC may have improperly “collaborated” with the respondents. Serious and baseless allegations were also made against the respondent's solicitors. At this point I need say no more about them, only that they appear to be similarly unevidenced in substance.

What Mr Zelman could have done is simply to have filed an appeal bundle. He has chosen not to do that. Instead, he has filed an application notice, he has made a statement, and he has also filed a statement from his son, Daniel Zelman, which is dated 30 June 2025. I have read that separate statement. There has serious flaws. There is no statement of truth. It appears to engage in argument and it is by someone who is not a lawyer, nor who has been granted permission to advocate on behalf of the applicant. It is not compliant with the relevant Civil Procedure Rules. It repeats some of the far-fetched allegations, and given its procedural defects it adds little to the sum of knowledge in this case.

The claim that Mr Zelman is awaiting the Official Solicitor's involvement cannot justify his actions. By his statement of 28 April 2025, he is plainly capable of making his case in forceful and tendentious terms. As Ritchie J noted at paragraph 22 in his reasons:

“The Official Solicitor has been asked to act as the litigation friend, but the rules state that he/she will only act if he/she will be paid or can find a lawyer to act for payment or on a conditional fee agreement. There is no suggesting that the appellant intends to pay for legal assistance. He has not hired a lawyer to do so at any stage of the claim or the appeal.”

Therefore, I judge that there is no good reason for the applicant's failure to comply with Ritchie J's order. It is a wilful refusal.