A High Court judge has sounded the death knell for an ‘abusive’ legal campaign pursued by a litigant in person for more than a decade which involved the ‘unjust harassment and/or oppression’ of Mishcon de Reya.
In Martina Yvonne Shand v Mishcon De Reya LLP, Mr Justice Cotter had previously refused Martina Yvonne Shand permission to bring contempt proceedings against six people, five of whom are lawyers. The underlying dispute, which began around 14 years ago, centred on plumbing in and ventilation of Shand’s flat.
A second claim, stemming from the same underlying dispute, saw Shand amend her application against the London firm. The latest judgment noted that matters had moved on since the application first came before the judge.
The judge formally disallowed amendments which Shand made without permission and dismissed her amendment application in respect of further amendments. The judge also struck out the unamended claim ‘as disclosing no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim…and/or as an abuse of process…and/or statute-barred (out of time) and as being totally without merit’.
The judge had ‘no doubt that this action involved unjust harassment and/or oppression of Mishcon’.
Shand’s amendments were ‘the latest stage in a 14-year litigation war which has seen many individuals and companies drawn in within several actions’, the judge said, describing the factual basis of the claim as ‘fanciful’.
He added: ‘As regards the abusive nature of the claim, the picture is, in my view, very straightforward.
’Mishcon compensated Ms Shand for negligence and consequential losses alleged in the 2019 claim. If she had any claim in damages flowing from the breach of duty she should have brought it within that claim. Ms Shand is simply seeking to advance a new theory to support her underlying conspiracy theory; a theory which failed to survive within her 2019 litigation. The conflict of interest point now raised could and should have been raised within proceedings; the whole case should have been brought forward and these proceedings are abusive.’
Shand had ‘lost objectivity’, the judge said. He had a ‘duty to the defendant, the court and also Ms Shand to stop this claim taking up more time and money applying a test of realism to the factual claim she seeks to pursue’.
He added: ‘It is not in dispute that Mishcon negligently handed Ms Shand’s claim. That was admitted a long time ago. Standing back with the benefit of the full history of 14 years of litigation it is my view that this claim as now formulated is yet another facet of a conspiracy theory which has evolved to counter any setback. It is time that the underlying conspiracy theory is given its quietus.’
