[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Prankerd, R (on the application of) v Truro County Court [2006] EWHC 898 (Admin) (03 April 2006) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2006/898.html Cite as: [2006] EWHC 898 (Admin)

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2
		3rd April 2006

Monday, 3rd April 2006

1. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: This is a renewed application by Mrs Prankerd to seek permission to apply for judicial review against a decision of His Honour Judge Tyzack sitting in the Truro County Court in November 2004 in which he refused leave to appeal the decision of a deputy district judge which itself refused her permission to lodge a counterclaim.
2. The background to the litigation in the County Court related to proceedings against Mrs Prankerd in relation to the financing of a vehicle which was being sold to her as long ago as September 2001. On the facts it was decided by the district judge that her evidence was not accepted. The district judge did not, and did not have to, find positively that she was not telling the truth deliberately, simply that he was unable to accept her evidence.
3. Mrs Prankerd has sought to dress the claim up on the basis of an attack on the jurisdiction of the court. The Acknowledgment of Service on behalf of the court was on the basis that the claim was out of time. That is wrong in the sense that it was within the three months which is the maximum period permitted for an application to be lodged, although such an application has to be lodged promptly, and in any event within three months. But I would not propose to hold against her that it was not prompt. I assume that it was in time and it should be considered on its merits.
4. Before going further I should say that Mrs Prankerd is not here. The reason why she is not here is that she says that she is unfit to attend court. She has indeed provided a medical certificate which is to that effect.
5. In addition, she has written a letter, dated yesterday, which was received today, in which she refers back to a letter of 26th January in which she purported to object to a large number of judges who sit in this court. The reason for that is that she is no stranger to litigation. A large number of cases have been brought by her and by her husband who is the subject of a vexatious litigant order.
6. The first thing to say is that it is not open to any litigant to try to avoid a particular judge on the basis that that judge has, in the past, decided a case against the particular litigant, or the particular litigant does not like the way the judge dealt with a particular case.
7. Mrs Prankerd has made specific allegations against me on the basis of a hearing that occurred in June 1997. I am bound to say that I cannot now recall the details of that. The suggestion that she makes is that I displayed personal animosity towards her and thus, in dismissing her application, I was acting unjudicially, with mala fides and maliciously.
8. It is a feature of Mrs Prankerd's approach to litigation that when she loses she attacks the judge. I am among a number of judges who have been the subject of such attacks, not least Judge Overend, who was, at the time, the lead judge in the Truro County Court.
9. This claim is undoubtedly hopeless, without merit and is going to go nowhere. The system in the County Court provides for appeals and it is only in the most exceptional case that judicial review will be considered an appropriate remedy where the County Court has dealt with a case and a judge in the County Court has refused leave to appeal.
10. Until the litigant has exhausted his or her appeal rights this Court will not intervene and, in any event, as the Court of Appeal has indicated in Sivasubramanian v Wandsworth County Court, it is only in the most exceptional circumstances that this sort of application could succeed.
11. That being so, it seems to me that it would be quite impossible for this claim to have any chance of success. It will fail on its merits, being totally without merit.
12. However, I do recognise that Mrs Prankerd is ill and unable to attend. In those circumstances it would be wrong for me to deprive her of the possibility of appearing and arguing the point. It is not necessary that it is reserved to myself. What I propose to do, having said what I have said, that that should be transcribed and sent to Mrs Prankerd. If she decides, nonetheless, that she wants to pursue the matter and come and argue the point then it will be open to her to do so, but she must make that decision and indicate that that is her intention within 14 days of receiving a copy of the transcript. If she does not indicate that within 14 days then this claim will be struck out.
13. I should warn her that if she does persist, and if the judge before whom her claim comes decides that indeed it is totally without merit, then consideration will be given to the making of an order, the effect of which will be that she is not entitled to pursue any claim before the High Court or the County Court without the express permission of a judge. It is not the same as a vexatious litigant order, but it has much the same effect. That is an order that she is at risk of having made against her if this application is pursued, unless of course, she does produce a good argument which, at the moment, is hidden and not in the least apparent.