Calland v Financial Services Authority (FSA)
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LADY JUSTICE GLOSTER
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Tort Law
- Administrative Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Mr. John Calland Sr. brought a harassment claim against the FSA. Initial strike-out application was refused, requiring a full factual hearing. Later, Recorder Steynor struck out the claim after a mini trial. Permission for a second appeal was sought and granted, raising important questions about the need for full hearings, judicial discretion in appellate reviews, and the need for legal clarity on harassment by regulators.
J U D G M E N T
1. LADY JUSTICE GLOSTER: This is an application for permission to bring a second appeal against the decision of Recorder Steynor, sitting at the Bow County Court, on the hearing of an appeal from the order of Deputy District Judge Ray in the Exeter County Court dated 11 November 2011. Deputy District Judge Ray dismissed an application by the FSA, an interlocutory application, to strike out the claim brought by the claimant, Mr John Calland Senior. The deputy District Judge in an admirably concise judgment, came to the conclusion that -- and I am reading from paragraph 24 of her judgment:
"Having heard the divergence of submissions on the facts of this case, I consider that the resolution of the facts can only be achieved by a full hearing where these serious live issues of fact can only properly be determined by hearing oral evidence. I am of a firm view, having heard counsel at great length, that the court on this application for a strike out at this early stage is not 'well able to separate the wheat from the chaff' (to quote part of Lord Nicholls' judgment in Majrowski ); indeed, as the submissions progressed, it was clear to me that the issues between the parties were increasing, even beyond the extensive skeleton arguments and documentation before me."
She then went on to conclude that the respondent's case, that was Mr Calland's case, who was bringing a harassment claim:
" ... is better than merely arguable, and that, therefore, it has a real prospect of success."
That was an exercise of the deputy District Judge's discretion on the strike out application.
2. The matter was then transferred by consent to the Bow County Court where the matter was heard on 27 November 2012, and it was only some nine months later on 19 August 2013 Recorder Steynor sent the parties a written judgment. He disagreed with the decision of the Deputy District Judge and decided, having heard extensive submissions from leading counsel on behalf of the FSA -- I am told by Mr Calland that these lasted all day, almost all day -- with Mr Calland's QC only having 40 minutes in response. The Recorder decided, having apparently conducted what from the judgment appears to be a mini trial of issues of fact, that the claim should be struck out.
3. In my judgment, and despite the fact that leave for permission to appeal has been refused on the papers by Lewison LJ, this is indeed a case where, notwithstanding it is a second appeal, it is nonetheless appropriate t