Anna Christie v Mary Ward Legal Centre & Anor
[2023] EWHC 1814 (KB)
Dancan Murithi & Ors. v AVH Legal LLP (t/a Tandem Law) & Ors.
26 May 2023
[2023] EWHC 1245 (KB)
High Court
Kenyan citizens sued the British government. Their lawyers are now being sued for not doing a good enough job. The judge threw out the case against the lawyers because it was trying to re-fight a previous case that had already been decided, even if the evidence had been better.
Key Facts
- •Approximately 40,000 Kenyan citizens brought personal injury claims against the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) related to the 'Kenyan Emergency' (1952-1960).
- •The Kimathi litigation involved these claims, with AVH Legal LLP as lead solicitor.
- •A Group Litigation Order (GLO) was issued, selecting 40 test cases, including some alleging rape and castration.
- •Stewart J ultimately dismissed all claims in the Kimathi litigation.
- •The present claimants (14 individuals who were claimants in the Kimathi litigation) brought professional negligence claims against the solicitors and barristers involved in that litigation.
- •The negligence claims allege failures in preparing evidence related to the Limitation Act 1980, section 33, and in the selection of test cases.
Legal Principles
Summary judgment can be granted if the claimant has no real prospect of success and there is no other compelling reason for a trial.
CPR Rule 24.2
A statement of case can be struck out if it discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim or is an abuse of the court's process.
CPR Rule 3.4(2)
Collateral attacks on prior court decisions are an abuse of process if manifestly unfair or bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.
Allsop v Banner Jones Ltd [2022] Ch 55
Limitation Act 1980, section 33 allows the court to disapply limitation periods if equitable.
Limitation Act 1980, s.33
Outcomes
Summary judgment for the Defendants on the s33 evidence issue and the test case selection issue.
Claimants failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success; their claims amounted to impermissible collateral attacks on Stewart J's decisions in the Kimathi litigation, bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.
Claims struck out under CPR Rule 3.4(2)(b) as an abuse of process.
Relitigating the issues raised would be manifestly unfair and bring the administration of justice into disrepute.