A lawyer in England and Wales has been allowed by the Court of Appeal to pursue a harassment claim against a firm at which he formerly worked as a paralegal.
Jackson Yamba, described in the judgment as a 'regulated (sic) foreign lawyer', was employed by BW Legal Services Ltd, a debt recovery firm instructed by parking companies. He left the business in 2020 and is now a director of Contestor Legal Ltd, trading as Contestor Legal Services (CLS).
Yamba alleged that since CLS’s inception, BW had ‘used every opportunity to bully him and to see him out of business’. BW denied the allegation. Yamba brought proceedings against BW over alleged malicious prosecution in civil proceedings, the tort of abuse of process, and harassment.
Yamba’s claim was struck out, which he appealed. Permission to appeal in relation to claims based on malicious civil prosecution or tortious abuse of process was refused. The harassment claim was found to be arguable.
BW was granted permission to appeal parts of a case management order. The two grounds were that there was a ‘serious procedural irregularity’ to order parties to file amended statements of case before the substantive appeal hearing which would ‘inevitably lead the appellate court to consider statements of case which were not available to the district judge’, and that the ‘finding that the reply sufficiently raised common law harassment was wrong in law because a reply to a defence cannot bring in a new claim’.
In Jackson Yamba v BW Legal Services Limited, Lord Justice Birss and Lady Justice Asplin said Yamba ‘was always entitled’ to put forward a case based on harassment at common law.
Birss added: ‘If the facts relied on amount to a claim of harassment at common law, then the fact the particulars of claim do not spell that out does not preclude the claimant from relying on that case to defeat a strike out application.’
Referring to the procedural irregularity ground, the judge said: ‘The fact he has submitted an amended particulars of claim is not going to insulate Mr Yamba from the need to win his appeal against the strike out. It is simply going to allow the judge hearing the strike out appeal to see his harassment claim, put as clearly as Mr Yamba is able, and adjudicate on it.
‘The claim had not been struck out below for lack of clarity, it was struck out as a matter of substance.’
Dismissing the appeal, the judge advised that ‘if the case management order had been to produce a draft amended particulars of claim this appeal could not have arisen’ adding: ‘In future that might be the best course to take and avoid arguments of this kind arising.’
