Mantrav Libel Case: - self represented litigants, a sign of things to come?

Attempt by Travel Agent to silence critics ends with an order to pay a Defendant's costs

Your blogger has been involved in a case far removed from the normal everyday practice of landlord & tenant law. A 'strange' case recently made it into the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. Judicial Cat shall refer to it as the 'Mantrav Libel Case'. The case was to last a little over a month; however, it offers an insight into the not so far off future where (due to legal aid restrictions) Self Represented Litigants will quickly become 'the norm'.

A little background 

The Claimant in the case was longtime travel agent Malcolm Hardy. Mr Hardy is 72 and specialised in arranging holidays for the gay community for many years. His business activities have been carried out under various legal structures; however, the common denominator is the name 'Mantrav'. Last year a dispute arose between Hardy and quite a few of his customers. In summary it is alleged that bookings (and payments) were taken for a resort by the name of Club Mancha in Gran Canaria Spain. Holidaymakers would arrive only to find the resort had no bookings and had never heard of the persons expecting to be accommodated. Disgruntled customers took to venting their concerns online. It has to be said that Hardy and Mantrav have consistently denied any wrongdoing. Opposed to that assertion are clear findings of fact in previous civil litigation involving Hardy, which describe him as being 'dishonest' and suggest a history of fabricating evidence. As a result of the online comment Hardy issued proceedings for libel in the Queen's Bench Division on 2 November 2012. He also sought a wide ranging and unprecedented injunction against the 5 Defendants (and 1 Defendant described as "John Does" an american term referring to 'persons unknown') to restrain them from publishing on any website worldwide the words "Malcolm Hardy", "Mantrav", and "Mantrav International" in any context. It was certainly an attempt to secure the most 'super' of the 'super injunctions'. Hardy also sought damages of circa £150,000.00 as part of the claim.

The Mail on Sunday covered the background to the proceedings on Sunday 2 December 2012: -

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/holidays/article-2241565/Travel-agent-sues-libel-false-malicious-defamatory-internet-holiday-reviews.html

Self Represented Litigants: - pitfalls for the courts and litigants as well as lessons to be learned

What made this case unusual was the fact that, initially, every party (the Claimant and all the Defendants) were acting for themselves, or 'Self Represented Litigants' as the legal profession now likes to call them. Your blogger was approached by one of the Defendants and your blogger's services were offered pro bono (without charge).

Upon reading the initial case papers something profound stood out. Here was a very serious case. One seeking substantial damages but, more importantly, an injunction with consequences for freedom of expression in the United Kingdom. These were not the celebrities who we hear about almost daily, stalking the courts, seeking to prevent reporting of their 'private lives'. Instead we had ordinary everyday people who risked being silenced by a businessman whose main aim was to gag any person who dared to complain about his alleged business practices. No legal aid was available for any party (and it never has been available for defamation cases in any event). Despite the serious nature of this claim the court was almost reduced to a farce.

The claim filed by Hardy did not even begin to disclose any reasonable cause of action. A cursory perusal of the claim would disclose that it was simply never going to be legally sustainable. A key document called the 'Particulars of Claim' was incoherent, rambling, and failed to disclose any positive case. Despite this the claim made it to a court room on two occasions and led to at least two of the Defendants incurring substantial expenses in terms of disbursements and/or loss of income. 

A substantive hearing before Sharp J took place on the morning of 5 December 2012. Over two hours of court time were taken up considering an injunction application, which as the learned judge made clear was 'totally without merit'. The injunction application was thus dismissed and the claim as a whole was 'struck out'. Thus, for now, the case has ended subject to any decision by Mr Hardy to seek permission to Appeal.

The key point of this blog post however is not the merits (lack of) concerning the claim but the very fact that it was allowed to be brought at all. There are supposed to be mechanisms in place within the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 to identify those cases, which are obviously without any legal foundation whatsoever. Such claims should be passed to a procedural judge to consider whether they should be 'struck out' pursuant to the court's own initiative. The point being that Defendants should not be put to the time and expense of needing to even reply to hopeless claims, which are not going anywhere. In the 'Mantrav Libel Case' Judicial Cat estimates about £10,000.00 in professional legal fees would have been incurred by just one Defendant in one month had specialist libel lawyers been retained. Even without this the Defendants incurred over £1,000.00 in expenses but were only able to recover a small fraction via an order for costs.

The courts must be ready to stop such hopeless claims

In an era were Self Represented Litigants will be increasing, the administration of Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service need to be alert to the issuing of hopeless cases with no basis in law. Rules must be followed and such cases referred at an early stage to the judiciary with the aim of stopping them before one single Defendant is forced to incur the time and expense of dealing with a claim disclosing no reasonable cause of action. It is outrageous that Defendants are expected to pay court fees and incur the expenses of applying to 'strike out' such claims when provisions already exist for the courts to take the necessary action 'in house'. 

As indicated above Mr Hardy may yet appeal and, indeed, he may also simply re-issue his claim and the whole process of expense and time wasting in the court will commence again.