HM Courts and Tribunal Service employee Costas Bell made a unilateral legal decision without referring an email to Norwich County Court circuit judge to deprive a member of the public of access to justice.
Financial Fraudster News Investigation Team can reveal that Mr David Smith, a British citizen, who simply sought to bring a claim through the civil courts at Norwich against a party as is his right giving his residential address and a separate service address where all his correspondence would be held by his trust managers due to his ownership of several properties as is his right.
Initially, the case was referred to His Honour Judge Lloyd Wayne Frazer North, a circuit judge, sitting at the County Court at Norwich who stated the following in an email dated 12 February 2012:
Dear Sir,
Your email was referred to His Honour Judge North who has directed as
follows;
'CPR 6.23 provides:-
(1) A party to proceedings must give an address at which that party
may be served with documents relating to those proceedings. The
address must include a full postcode or its equivalent in any EEA
state unless the court orders otherwise.
(2) Except where any other rule or practice direction makes different
provision, a party's address for service must be-
(a) the business address either within the UK or any other EEA state
of a solicitor acting for the party to be served; or
(b) the business address in any EEA state of a European Lawyer
nominated to accept service of documents; or
(c) where there is no solicitor acting for the party or no European
Lawyer nominated to accept service of documents-
(i) an address within the United Kingdom at which the party resides or
carries on business; or
(ii) an address within any other EEA state at which the party resides
or carries on business.
The address for service appears not to be his business address or
place of residence. The claim form must be amended accordingly before
it can be issued. Return the papers for amendment'.
Kind Regards
Costas Bell
Administration Officer
Mr Smith duly replied with an email:
Dear Court Manager/Costas Bell
Please bring to the attached to the URGENT ATTENTION of HHJ North which
gives prima facie evidence of a place for service pursuant to CPR
6.23(1) which constitutes where my business is run from under my current
circumstances and begs the obvious question of where my bills for my
properties and interests would be sent for payment given my circumstance
at present in order to be paid.
1 x Utility Bill
For the avoidance of doubt all correspondence vital to me and my
business are sent to the address on the claim and therefore complies
with CPR 6.23(1)and is contrary to the assumptions made thus far by the
Court.
As a result I implore the Court to issue proceedings forthwith.
Yours faithfully
David Smith
Financial Fraudster News Investigation Team has seen an email from Mr Bell who instead of ensuring that HHJ North got a copy of the email.
In fact, Mr Bell who is not authorised to bind the Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other statements which may bind the Department in any way via electronic means sent the following email:
Dear Sir
The Court has advised you fully of what is required from you as the Claimant for your claim to be issued.
The Civil Procedure Rules quoted must be complied with I have been advised to inform you that as far as the Court is concerned we cannot enter into further correspondence with you concerning this matter.
Should you not understand the CPR rules, I advise you to seek legal advice either from a Solicitor or Citizens Advice Bureau.
Costas Bell
Administration Officer
Without any reference of being referred to a judge the email signals a departure that signals HMCTS allowing staff to act in a manner that has prevented Mr Smith from accessing the civil justice system.
Mr Smith stated, “I asked for a judge to look at my email and the attached utility bill which contained the address I asked for the claim when issued to be the same address for service which clearly is a place where my business affairs are run by my trustee who is a retired lawyer, what is this idiot think he is doing…”
Mr Smith continued; "I want to know what the hell is going on, and since when has a civil servant been allowed to interpret civil procedure rules when as I have been legally advised that my claim and the address I wrote on the claim form service meets the requirements under CPR 6.23 (1)."
Financial Fraudster News has asked the HM Court and Tribunal Service to comment.
Please contact Steve Gregg: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
