[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 >> Alaneme v London Borough Of Bromley [2002] EWCA Civ 1845 (10 October 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1845.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 1845

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(MR JUSTICE MITCHELL)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2 Thursday, 10th October 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE LAWS: This is an application filed on 6th September 2002 for permission to appeal against the decision of Mitchell J given as long ago as 3rd December 1999, and also a decision of Master Foster given a week later on 10th December 1999. Mitchell J refused the applicant's application for an injunction and struck out her claim against the London Borough of Bromley. Master Foster dismissed her application for summary judgment and an injunction against Bromley.
2. I should briefly explain the background. The proceedings were commenced by the applicant on 21st September 1999. Under a heading "Brief Details of the Claim", the applicant stated this:

"I wish my claim to be issued in the High Court because of its complexity and exceptional circumstances. I therefore request for a Court Order to prevent the illegal attacks directed at No 12 Bonnington Tower, Turpington Lane, Bromley, BR2 8JY. Damages of attacks to my flat and its effect on my person and my flat, ranging from air poisons to food, water, drink, cosmetics, cloth et cetera. Contamination totalled £45,151,349 damages."

3. The claim was addressed to the Borough Secretary and Solicitor at the London Borough of Bromley. Further particulars of the claim are given as follows:

"The use of the flat above and below me, Nos 7 and 17 Bonnington Tower, Turpington Lane, Bromley, BR2 8JY, by the British Government persons on behalf of the London Borough of Bromley to conduct unlawful actions against me, because of their abuse and misuse of the Care Order [case number is given] of my daughter makes this Court Order paramount.

"The legal attacks include:

"(a) contaminating my tap water with deadly chemicals unfit for residential use.

"(b) pumping harmful gases into my flat No 12 Bonnington Towers, Turpington Lane, Bromley, Kent, BR2 8JY from flats Nos 7 and 17 Bonnington Tower, Turpington Lane, Bromley.

"(c) entering my flat to defile, befoul and desecrate my personal belongings including my food items, toilet rolls, bed covers, toilet seat, drinks, refrigerator, cosmetics, cooker, towels to mention but few."

Then at paragraph number 5:

"These barbaric actions are carried out every single day by evil and malicious government persons employed by a government authority. These persons take pleasure inflicting damage to someone, simply because my daughter and myself, Elizabeth Alaneme, spoke out against abuse and being subjected to harassment, intimidation and humiliation of our individual persons.

"6. I therefore ask for a Court Order to prevent any attack to my person, Elizabeth Alaneme, or to my daughter and on my flat by the London Borough of Bromley in whatever form, shape or manner these attacks may come or by whom it may come from."

4. So it was that the applicant sought an interlocutory injunction against Bromley. In her application notice she was required to summarise the evidence on which she relied. That was set out, and I may go to the judgment of Mitchell J, given as I have said on 3rd December 1999, who recites the particulars given:

"(1) scaffolding erected against my windows in 1998 and 1999 to block and pump poisonous gas into my flat; (2) tape recorder recording the council's activities in my flat was damaged on 18th October by the council while I was out of my flat in court issuing application; (3) poison body cream; (4) tape evidence; (5) bed covers spread with poison; (6) carpets in my flat spread with poison."

5. The judge proceeded to note that he had invited the applicant to elaborate on a good deal of what she had there set out, and indeed she did so. The judge records what she had said, but concludes that there was simply no basis whatever upon which these allegations could be laid at the door of the London Borough of Bromley. There is nothing, I think, separate to be said about Master Foster's order. If Mitchell J's order is not sensibly appealable, nor is that of the Master, leave aside any technical questions as to an appeal direct from the Learned Master to this court in any event.
6. The applicant made a previous application for permission to appeal against Mitchell J's order of 3rd December 1999. That went before Chadwick LJ on 1st March 2000.
7. Appearing before me in person this morning, the applicant, as I understood it, indicated that she did not accept that this was an application for permission to appeal against the same order; but it plainly was. The transcript of Chadwick LJ's judgment begins thus:

"This is an application for permission to appeal against an order made by Mitchell J on 3rd December 1999 in proceedings brought by Elizabeth Alaneme against the London Borough of Bromley. By that order the judge dismissed the claimant's application for an injunction, struck out her statement of case and claim under CPR Part3.42(a) and directed that she should pay Bromley's costs in the sum of £500."

8. It is plainly the same matter. Chadwick LJ rejected an application by the applicant to put in further evidence. That was apparently an affidavit from a lady who was a housing officer with the applicant's landlords; but that in any event would have been of no assistance to the applicant having regard to its contents. In the result Chadwick LJ held that there was no sensible prospect of the Court of Appeal interfering with Mitchell J's order.
9. As I have said, Chadwick LJ dealt with the matter on 1st March 2000. This present application was lodged on 6th September 2002. It makes a series of extreme but generalised allegations. The applicant has put in a further document, sent to the Civil Appeal Office a few days ago, which makes accusations about the respondent's care of her daughter. It makes a series of wholly bizarre allegations, which I need not set out. The applicant says there is new evidence to support her case, and to support her prospective appeal against the order made by Mitchell J. She pointed this morning in particular to a warrant issued on 1st June 2001 out of the Magistrates' Court, authorising a constable to enter the applicant's premises and remove her to a place of safety. She says that that was obtained on wholly false information, and was referred to some other document. But whatever the rights and wrong of that document, it is entirely incapable of supporting an appeal against Mitchell J's order made on 3rd December 1999.
10. The truth of this matter here is that Chadwick LJ has already refused permission to appeal. This application, even if it could otherwise be entertained, is hopelessly out of time. It is also abusive and vexatious, and will be dismissed.
ORDER: Application for permission to appeal dismissed.