Attorney General, R (on the application of) v Cameron

LORD JUSTICE DYSON: There is before the court this afternoon an application made by Sheila Cameron in relation to proceedings which are underway under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, as amended -- proceedings brought by the Attorney General against Miss Cameron.

The basis of the claim is that she has habitually, persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious civil proceedings and made vexatious applications in those proceedings.

The two points which have prompted Miss Cameron's application today are these. First, she asserted that the Treasury Solicitor, who has carriage of these proceedings on behalf of the Attorney General, did not have his authority to pursue these proceedings. That contention was plainly misconceived and Miss Cameron now accepts that that is so and no longer pursues that point.

The second matter that she wished to raise with the court was the correctness or otherwise of these proceedings being dealt with under Part 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, rather than Part 7. She insists that there are disputed questions of fact and that for that reason Part 7 is more suitable than Part 8.

It is quite clear, however, that the Part 8 procedure is required to be used in claims pursuant to section 42 of the Act. If one trails through the relevant provisions of the CPR, that becomes clear. CPR8.1(2) provides that a claimant may use the Part 8 procedure either where he seeks the court's decision on a question which is unlikely to involve a substantial dispute of fact, or where CPR8.1(6) applies.

CPR8.1(6) provides that a rule or Practice Direction may, in relation to a specified type of proceedings, require or permit the use of the Part 8 procedure. Section B of the Practice Direction to CPR Part 8 applies if the claim is listed in Table 2, would have been brought before 26th April 1999 in the High Court by originating motion, and no other procedure is prescribed in an Act, a Rule or Practice Direction.

Claims pursuant to section 42 of the 1981 Act are listed in Table 2. Such claims would, prior to 26th April 1999, have been brought in the High Court by originating motion and no other procedure is prescribed in any Act, Rule or Practice Direction.

Accordingly, as Mr Tovey points out in his helpful written submissions, pursuant to paragraph B.5 of the Part 8 Practice Direction, the claimant is required to use the procedures set out in the remainder of that section in the Practice Direction.

I think that Miss Cameron now accepts this, but whether she does or she does not, that is plainly the position. I note also, and I am grateful to Mr Tovey for drawing the court's attention to this, that Maurice Kay J reached the same conclusion in the decision of Bingham, a decision dated 4th September 2002.

Accordingly, neither of the challenges advanced by Miss Cameron is of any substance and I would reject them and declare that the section 42 proceedings are properly constituted and should proceed.

MR JUSTICE GIBBS: I agree.

LORD JUSTICE DYSON: Mr Tovey, I am very reluctant to get drawn into directions in a case that the court really knows very little about indeed, but do you want to say anything about this?

MR TOVEY: My Lord, Part 8 provides, as it were, all the directions that one needs. Miss Cameron is in breach of the directions to serve her evidence 14 days after the evidence in support is served on her. If she had wanted to serve some evidence and had wanted to apply for permission to serve it out of time, the application may have been considered. But one would expect to see the evidence first before the application for permission were made.

My Lord, I certainly would not seek to have the Attorney General unreasonably to exclude any evidence that Miss Cameron sought to adduce, and within the required hearing date, there is plenty of time for Miss Cameron, if she wishes to, to adduce that evidence, or to ask in correspondence for permission to adduce it out of time.

That is the only direction, my Lord. Other than that, the matter to consider is the time of the hearing.

LORD JUSTICE DYSON: Yes. Thank you very much.

Miss Cameron, you heard what Mr Tovey said. Obviously, the matter must be listed for a final hearing and that will happen in the ordinary way. But, beyond that, it is difficult to see what other directions can sensibly be given by this court.

If you want to put in your own evidence, then I suggest that you prepare that evidence without any further delay, you serve it on the Attorney General and ask whether he will consent to that evidence being admitted out of time.

You have heard what Mr Tovey said and I am sure that if you put that evidence in within the very near future, then it is most unlikely indeed that there will be any resistance to an application by you to the court for permission to put that evidence in out of time. But I think you should get on with it because the longer you leave it, the more difficult you may find it.

MISS CAMERON: My Lord, I have been struggling in this matter (inaudible) as a litigant in person, it is very difficult for me to know exactly what to compile in the time.

The problem is that there are also, if I may say this and it is not objectionable, errors and misrepresentative statements in the judgments themselves. So I would not know how to deal with these matters.

LORD JUSTICE DYSON: Miss Cameron, I do not want to prolong today because this is not really before us.

You have heard what I said. My advice to you is: do your best to prepare and send your evidence to the other side as quickly as possible.

MISS CAMERON: Does it matter how much is it?

LORD JUSTICE DYSON: I hope you will show restraint and keep it to the minimum that is necessary.

MISS CAMERON: Yes, I will keep it to the minimum.

LORD JUSTICE DYSON: Thank you very much.

MR TOVEY: My Lord, I would ask for costs in this application.

My Lord may have the experience where the Attorney General does not ask for costs in these proceedings.

LORD JUSTICE DYSON: Yes.

MR TOVEY: That is under general review.

But, so far as this application is concerned, the claimant's position is that this hearing was totally unnecessary. It not a necessary part of the application under section 42 and, in the light of the (inaudible) decision, as far as the challenge to the Treasury Solicitor's authority, it was an unreasonable one.

LORD JUSTICE DYSON: Do you have a bill of costs?

MR TOVEY: My Lord, it was served on Miss Cameron. It was sent to her on the Friday. I believe she received it yesterday.

LORD JUSTICE DYSON: Do you have this, Miss Cameron?

MISS CAMERON: Yes. I think I received it today. I received it this morning.

LORD JUSTICE DYSON: Yes.

MR TOVEY: My Lord, before I come to the actual figure, I simply wanted to tell my Lord that the Treasury Solicitor had written, and I have mentioned this in my skeleton argument, a detailed letter on 2nd July in response to Miss Cameron's application, pointing out to her, as it were, the error of her ways as far as this application was concerned.

LORD JUSTICE DYSON: Obviously, we will have to decide whether we are going to award you costs as a matter of principle, but by the grand total it says "TBA". I do not have a figure.

MR TOVEY: My Lord, that was because at that stage, because of the way that counsel are instructed, it is done on an hourly rate.

LORD JUSTICE DYSON: What is the figure?

MR TOVEY: The figure, my Lord, taking into account the short length of this hearing, is £320 for counsel. That is including the preparation of skeleton arguments. I have not included VAT on that. There would be VAT on my fees, albeit not on Treasury Solicitor's charge fees. So it is £171 in Treasury Solicitor's charges and £320.

LORD JUSTICE DYSON: So it is just over £500?

MR TOVEY: Yes, my Lord.

LORD JUSTICE DYSON: Miss Cameron, what do you say about this? What is being said against you is that this was a really hopeless application, that the other side sent you their arguments. You said you got them when? This morning?

MISS CAMERON: In my view it was not hopeless because I genuinely believe --

LORD JUSTICE DYSON: I know you genuinely believe, but I am just telling you that this is what the case is that is against you. They are saying that you made a hopeless application and you have lost and that the normal outcome in such a situation is that the loser has to pay the reasonable costs of the other side and the reasonable costs claimed here are £540.

MISS CAMERSON: In my opinion, this hearing has not been a complete waste of time, your Lordship, because I believed what exactly I had to do with regard to providing evidence (inaudible). So, as a litigant in person, I feel that, you know, this is a necessary hearing (inaudible).

Also, the point is that I am now a discharged bankrupt and in my view I was wrongly bankrupt and it was wrongly made against me in the first place. Also, because I did not receive this 24 hours in advance, I should not be obliged to pay the costs.

LORD JUSTICE DYSON: Thank you very much.

Miss Cameron, we feel that it is right that you should pay the costs of today's exercise. I has been brought about by you.

The two points that you have raised, I think even you have conceded -- almost conceded -- that they were bad points. They plainly were bad points and the result was that the Attorney General has incurred public money in, perfectly properly, instructing counsel to come along. Counsel prepared a skeleton argument, or outline submissions, which set out the case very clearly, and it is our view that, in principle, it is right that you should pay the costs, which we will assess at £500.

Thank you very much.