A litigant in person has been made subject to an extended civil restraint order after contempt applications she made against her former lawyers were found to be totally without merit. 

Martina Yvonne Shand sought permission to bring contempt proceedings against six people, five of whom are lawyers. The underlying dispute, which began more than 13 years ago, centred on plumbing in and ventilation of Shand’s flat.

The judgment in Martina Yvonne Shand v Peter Edward Kemkers & Ors described Shand’s allegations as ‘of the most serious character’ against defendants ‘who are all alleged to have been guilty of misconduct and indeed to have conspired together to deceive Ms Shand and the court’.

Mr Justice Cotter said Shand, who represented herself, ‘presented as little short of crestfallen and overwhelmed and…clearly very upset’.

He added: ‘The reality is that Ms Shand chose to make contempt allegations against six defendants, five of whom are lawyers,’ he said. ‘These defendants were responding to her claim; they did not bring her to court; it was the reverse position. Having to face a group of highly skilled legal representatives was inevitable given the path she had chosen to take.’

Referring to Shand’s description of how matters were advanced as ‘cruel’, the judge said: ‘There was nothing remotely cruel in the highly professional and courteous presentations of the cases by any legal teams on behalf of any defendant.

‘That they must have appeared to Ms Shand to be an expert demolition of her arguments was because of the lack of merit in those arguments; not because it was wrong to address them or the manner in which they were addressed.’

Read more

The judge found the contempt allegations Shand sought to pursue ‘disproportionate’. He found all allegations against each of the six defendants totally without merit.

Striking out the allegations, the judge said: ‘Ms Shand has made serious allegations against six individuals. Where permission to pursue them is required I refuse it. In any event I would strike out all the allegations on the ground that they have no realistic prospect of success and/or are an abuse of the court’s process.

‘In my view the allegations would all be bound to fail and the applications for permission to proceed against the six defendants are each totally without merit.’

Last year, Shand also brought Part 7 proceedings against Mishcon de Reya and DWF. The claim, which has yet to be served, the judgment said, is valued ‘in excess of £500,000’.

Striking out the claim, the judge said: ‘The claim against Mishcon is clearly an abuse of the process of the court. The settlement agreement reached by the acceptance of the Part 36 offer on 22 January 2021 bars any further claim based on the same facts/causes of action pleaded following discontinuance of the balance of the allegations.

‘As for those wider allegations which were originally pleaded when Ms Shand discontinued the claim based on them she voluntarily chose not to pursue them. To allow a fresh action based on the matters raised in the 2019 action would plainly offend against the principle of finality and the rule in Henderson v Henderson…and would allow an abuse of the process of the court.

‘As Lord Bingham stated a party should not be twice vexed in the same matter. For this reason alone the claim against Mishcon must be struck out.’

He struck out the claim against both firms and declared it totally without merit.

Ordering Shand be made subject to an ECRO for a three-year term, the judge said it was ‘necessary and proper’ to do so. He was ‘satisfied that Ms Shand has persisted in the making of wholly unmeritorious claims/applications in her pursuit of what she considers to be justice in relation to issues concerning her flat and if unrestrained will continue to do so’.