Judge strikes out businessman’s claim against solicitors

A businessman’s claim against his opponent’s solicitors has been struck out by a judge, who described it as “always bound to fail”. The claimant, Raj Pal Senna, had sued Lewis Silkin, a law firm, over its conduct of trade mark proceedings.

According to local reports, Lewis Silkin had applied for a civil restraint order against Mr Senna, which should be listed. The firm had acted for Japanese company Hoya Corporation in successfully opposing the application by a company called Photo-Image to register two camera trade marks.

Background to the Case

Even after stepping down as a director, Mr. Senna continued to represent Photo-Image during the dispute. The UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) found that the application fell short of acceptable standards of commercial behaviour and amounted to bad faith.

The UK Intellectual Property Office awarded Hoya off-scale costs because of how Mr Senna had conducted the proceedings. Instead of appealing, Mr Senna brought three sets of proceedings, including a judicial review of the decision and a claim against Hoya’s counsel.

The Claim Against Lewis Silkin

This claim sought damages of at least £375,000 for “psychiatric harm, distress, reputational harm, loss of his directorship at Photo-Image and economic loss in the form of damage to his camera repair and service business”. Lewis Silkin argued that the claim was an abuse of process and failed to disclose any case with a realistic prospect of success.

The law firm applied for a “terminating ruling”, while Mr Senna cross-applied for permission to amend his particulars of claim. The original particulars alleged that the outcome of the proceedings had been obtained dishonestly, but Mr Senna wanted to refocus them on Lewis Silkin’s deployment of the fact of his conviction in 1998.

During the course of the proceedings, Lewis Silkin withdrew its reliance on the conviction and filed a redacted version of a witness statement from one of its solicitors omitting the reference to the conviction and other aspects of Mr Senna’s litigation history.

Judge’s Ruling

Though the conviction was spent when Lewis Silkin obtained the information about it, Eardley J said the immunity from suit that prohibits claims based on statements made in the course of, or in preparation for, legal proceedings as a “complete answer to this claim”. He also rejected the contention that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 created a private law right of action against those who obtained, disclosed or mentioned a person’s spent conviction.

Mr Justice Eardley concluded that some aspects of the proposed amended claim involved abusive relitigation, almost all of it was precluded by the immunity rule, and the small parts of it that were not had no realistic prospect of success. He refused Mr Senna permission to amend and struck out the whole claim.

“This is already the claimant’s third set of draft amendments. There is nothing to suggest that he could cure the fundamental defects I have identified through further redrafting.”