England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

Peaceful Warrior Ltd., Re v Philips Electronics NV [2002] EWCA Civ 507 (17th April, 2002)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
Gibbs J

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		17th April 2002

Lord Justice Brooke : This is the judgment of the court.

1. On 15th May 2001 this court granted an application made by Philips Electronics (UK) Limited (“Philips”) for an order that Mr Anthony Alexander should not make any further applications or take any steps either in this court or in any court below in or arising out of the proceedings he had brought against them (numbered 1998 A 914) without the prior permission of this court. Any such application was to be made without notice and would be dealt with by this court on paper.
2. In that action Mr Alexander claimed that in November 1995 Philips had repudiated a contract made with him in July 1995 which had the effect that he would act as their agent for the purpose of marketing digital compact cassettes worldwide. He maintained that Philips’s repudiation of the contract had deprived him of the opportunity to make a profit in excess of £1.5 million. He claimed in the alternative damages estimated at £200,000, together with £25,000 expenses, for alleged [mis]representations by Philips’s agents, in reliance on which he had wasted time and energy in negotiations and had been deprived of the opportunity to earn income from alternative sources.
3. On 15th March 1999 Master Eyre struck out the writ and statement of claim in that action on the basis that they disclosed no reasonable cause of action. On 7th May 1999 Butterfield J dismissed Mr Alexander’s appeal against that order, and on 27th October 1999 this court refused permission to appeal. On 24th February 2000 Mr Registrar Baister adjudged Mr Alexander bankrupt. Philips were the petitioning creditors, and their statutory demand had been based on non-payment of the costs order made in their favour by Butterfield J.
4. The judgment of Judge LJ in this court, dated 15th May 2001, sets out the subsequent history of the litigation in that action. In paragraphs 59-60 Judge LJ said that the courts from the Master to the House of Lords had been inundated with a series of applications by Mr Alexander which had ultimately proved to be ill-founded. Time and again the exercise had been pointless and wasteful of limited court resources, and the court was entirely satisfied that without an order Mr Alexander would continue to exercise his ingenious and fertile brain to formulate yet further applications to restore this issue to the court.
5. Shortly afterwards a division of this court of which we were both members made an order against Mr Alexander when he was conducting litigation and rendering advocacy services as an unqualified layman (see Paragon Finance plc v Noueiri (Practice Note) [2001] EWCA Civ 1402; [2001] 1 WLR 2357). On 26th July 2001 we made an interim order and on 19th September 2001 we made a final order restraining Mr Alexander and any company owned or controlled by him, including the company variously known as Peaceful Warrior Ltd and Anthony Alexander Ltd, from taking any step whatever within the Royal Courts of Justice, whether in the face of any court or otherwise, by acting or purporting to act on behalf of any person other than himself in any legal proceedings or intended or prospective legal proceedings, save with the leave of the High Court of the Court of Appeal, such leave to be applied for and dealt with in writing.
6. In giving the judgement of the court Brooke LJ said (at para 73) that we were making this order to protect the court process of the Royal Courts of Justice. A little earlier (at para 72) he referred to the dangers to the administration of justice if unqualified persons, who were not subject to any professional discipline, acted as Mr Alexander did in the case with which we were then concerned. He added that the dangers were increased if these lay representatives were bankrupt, so that the courts had no realistic power to order them to pay any costs they had wasted through futilely prolonging the litigation.
7. The present application is concerned with an action which Peaceful Warrior Limited (“PWL”) wishes to bring against Philips Electronics NV (“Philips NV”) “and another”, claiming relief which appears strikingly similar to the relief claimed by Mr Alexander personally against Philips in action 1998 A 914. The claimant is described as Peaceful Warrior Ltd (formerly known as First Aspen Ltd and Anthony Alexander Ltd). The defendants are described as Philips Electronics NV and another, although their name and address is said to be “Philips Electronics NV c/o Philips (UK) Ltd”. In paragraph 1 of the Particulars of Claim it is said that the relevant July-August 1994 contract for a worldwide sales agency was made between Philips NV and First Aspen Ltd, and that the “title of the action” had passed to PWL.
8. On 25th January 2002 Mr Alexander and PWL applied to Gibbs J for an order granting PWL leave to issue these proceedings against Philips NV and granting Mr Alexander leave to represent and appear for PWL in the proceedings. Mr Alexander appears to have made this application in person, although in the statement of truth which formed part of the application he said that he was duly authorised by the “applicant” to make the statement. He signed the statement of truth as a “representative” on behalf of the company.
9. In paragraphs 2 to 4 of what he described as a “statement of case” Mr Alexander, describing himself as a “professional writer”, asserted:

“I say that [PWL] has a good claim against Philips Electronics NV and Philips (UK) Limited for breach of contract, as set out in the claim form accompanying this application.

The sole shareholder in [PWL] is my common law wife, Miss Moira Costello, who is also the acting company secretary; the other director being Mr Robert Grey Sherman, a citizen of the United States of America.

The company does not have the means to employ a practising solicitor, and as I am fully familiar with all the relevant facts and have the necessary expertise of advocacy and am the only person capable of conducting the case on its behalf (sic).”

10. This application was not formally made in the matter of the intended action between PWL and the Philips companies but in the action Paragon Finance plc v Noueiri, which was finally disposed of by the orders made in this court last year. On 25th January 2002 Gibbs J’s dealt with the application in writing, pursuant to the order made by this court on 26th July 2001, and refused it. By a proposed Appellant’s Notice filed on 11th March 2002 Mr Alexander, acting in person as the “person against whom the order of 26th July 2001 was made” sought to appeal Gibb’s order. He maintained that it was reasonable that in the interests of justice, in the absence of any solicitor or other person being able or willing to appear on “my behalf” (sic), he should be entitled to represent PWL in this intended action “as a sole exception to the order made herein by the Court of Appeal on 04 July 2001 (sic)”. This application for permission to appeal was placed before us to be dealt with on paper in accordance with the order of this court made on 19th September 2001.
11. We have no hesitation in refusing permission to appeal. This proposed action has all the hallmarks of the time-wasting, vexatious and incompetently conducted litigation which were the subject of criticism by this court on the two occasions last year to which we have referred. It is wholly inappropriate for Mr Alexander to be permitted to conduct this litigation, or to perform advocacy services on behalf of PWL. He is not subject to any professional discipline, so far as we are aware he is still a bankrupt, and his conduct of the present application discloses a worryingly broadbrush approach to the way in which High Court litigation in this country ought to be conducted, as his description of the proposed defendants to the action evidences.
12. We should make it clear that we have considered and rejected an informal application made by Mr Alexander by letter to this court to the effect that this application should be referred for directions to a member or members of this court of elevated seniority to us. Litigants are not permitted to pick and choose their courts, and in the circumstances of this case it appears to us appropriate that this application should be handled by two members of the court who are very familiar with the problems created by the way Mr Alexander handles litigation. We would add that if Mr Alexander makes any further applications for permission to appeal against an order of a judge made in writing under the powers granted by this court’s order dated 19th September 2001, they should be listed before a single lord justice for final disposal (whether by the grant or the refusal of permission) on paper. One of the purposes of the court in making the order on 19th September 2001, in its inherent jurisdiction to protect its process from abuse, was to avoid the time of the court being wasted on oral applications by Mr Alexander.
Order: Application refused. (Order does not form part of the approved judgment)