SRU -v- GBT (striking out order)

High CourtKing's Bench Division

Case number: KB-2023-004272

In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division

2 January 2024

Master Dagnall (sitting in private)



UPON consideration of the Court File

AND UPON the Claimant having issued a Claim Form in the County Court on 2 June 2023 seeking “To stop anyone from publishing without court’s permission claimant’s name, wife of claimant’s name or any addresses associated with claimant and his wife or addresses associated with claimant and his wife’s businesses through social media or by any other means for us to exercise our right to safety” And having named as a defendant a “Group” located in a jurisdiction (“the Foreign Jurisdiction”) outside this jurisdiction of England & Wales And having asserted that the defendant has made threats in the Foreign Jurisdiction against the Claimant and their family.

AND UPON the County Court by orders dated 1 June 2023 and 10 July 2023 having stayed the Claim and having transferred it to the High Court

AND UPON the Civil Procedure Rules providing by their Rules (“CPR”) and Practice Directions (“PD”) that:

  1. By CPR1.1 the Court should seek to achieve the overriding objective as defined by CPR1.1
  2. By CPR3.4(2) that the Court may strike out any part or all of a statement of case on the grounds that (a) it does not disclose reasonable grounds for bringing the claim or (b) is an abuse of the court’s process or otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings or (c) there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or order
  3. By CPR3.3 that the court may make an order of its own initiative but so that any party has a time in which to apply to set aside or vary that order
  4. By PD 3A paragraph 2 that on a reference by a court officer (which has occurred) the judge may make orders staying the case and including so that an application to lift the stay may only be made upon provision of further documents; and CPR3.1(2)(f) containing a general power for the Court to order a stay

AND UPON the Claimant being a litigant-in-person and CPR3.1A requiring the Court to consider that in making its orders; and the Court having done so

AND UPON the Claimant being potentially vulnerable and CPR1.6 and PD 1A requiring the Court to take such into account in managing the case; and the Court having done so

AND UPON the Defendant not having yet been served with the Claim Form and not having had notice of the matters above or an opportunity to be heard

AND UPON the Court having made an anonymity order (“the Anonymity Order”) dated 24 November 2023

IT IS ORDERED THAT (and on the Court’s own initiative):

  1. The Claim be struck out
  2. The Anonymity Order shall (subject to Paragraph (3) below) following 20 February 2024 cease to have effect except insofar as it prevents (i) the Claimant from being identified: as having been the Claimant in this Claim; or as having made the claims brought by the Claimant in this Claim; or as having asserted in this Claim the facts asserted by the Claimant in this Claim or (ii) the Defendant from being identified: as having been the Defendant in this Claim; or as having had made against them the claims brought by the Claimant in this Claim; or as having had asserted in this Claim against them the facts asserted by the Claimant in this Claim
  3. The Claimant may apply to set aside or vary this Order within 28 days of service of it upon them (and if any such application is made, it shall be made by Notice of Application (form N244) which shall address the reasons set out above and below, and, if it is made in time, the Anonymity Order shall continue until the application has been determined or further order of the court in the meantime)
  4. A copy of this Order shall be published on the judiciary website.


(1) I do not consider that there is any proper defendant to this Claim. The “Defendant” is identified by way of its being a “Group” and where it appears from the supporting documents that it is an organisation which has no legal personality.  Further, it is located outside this jurisdiction and so permission would be required for it to be served in the Foreign Jurisdiction (Part IV of CPR6) but no application has been made and the events referred to by the Claimant took place in the Foreign Jurisdiction.  Further, if the Defendant were to be served, that would alert them further to the Claimant and potentially result in the harm which the Claim is designed to prevent. 

(2) The remedy sought by the Claimant is so wide as to be potentially unworkable in practice; but, at first sight, it is difficult to see what other remedy would seek to accomplish the Claimant’s objectives.

(3) The Claimant’s claim is not directed against the Defendant but rather it is directed in practice against public (and possibly private) entities in this country whom the Claimant seeks to restrain in order to secure their and their family’s safety from the Defendant.  It is true that the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Human Rights Convention contain provisions regarding rights to life and protection of person and possessions, but the related duties tend to fall on public bodies alone.  However, no public bodies (and no-one other than the Defendant) are sought to be sued in this Claim.

(4) Although I have no reason to dispute the facts asserted by the Claimant, and which very much explain why the Claimant seeks the relief claimed; and although I have sympathy for the Claimant’s position and fears; for the reasons given above, I do not see this Claim as being maintainable or properly brought in law.  I therefore see it as being an abuse of process which should be struck out.  Although the Court can do no more than make suggestions, the Claimant may do better to apply to relevant public bodies to explore whether protective steps might be taken.

(5) The reasons for the making of the Anonymity Order (as set out in it) still stand but, if the Claim is to be struck out, the anonymity should be confined to the bringing of this Claim, and which I have reflected in my orders above.

(6) The Claimant is protected by the ability to apply to set aside or vary this Order which has been made without any hearing; and where the Claimant has (apparently) access to Direct Access Counsel.

(7) Non-parties, and the Defendant, are protected by the judiciary.