Events

The Claimant, C, was a litigant in person. He brought a Loss of Chance (LOC) Negligence claim against Counsel for his failure to submit evidence of malice, that C informed him of, in a past Malicious Prosecution (MP) claim against the CPS.
That claim was dismissed by Summary Judgment in February 2011, primarily for no evidence of malice.
On 17th November 2017, the Defendant ‘D’, brought an application to dismiss the Claim by Summary Judgement under CPR24.2/ CPR3.4(b). This was heard at at Bristol County Court on 20th September 2018, adjourned to 25th October 2018 where District Judge O’Neill dismissed it for no prospect of success. She referred to it as a collateral attack on the decision of the Court in 2011.
C requested permission to appeal on ten grounds under CPR52.21, with a Skeleton Argument. These Grounds argued that his claim was arguable (And actually proven) and not properly considered, that under the correct legal tests the Claim was wrongly dismissed, and Hearing not properly conducted, matters were not taken into account, the Judge accepted false statements and C had been subject to prejudice, an unfair Hearing and bias where the Judge even acted on behalf of the Appellant.
His Honour Judge Ralton at Bristol County Court, first refused permission in writing, then refused after C’s submissions at an Oral Hearing on 5th June 2019. He concluded the decision was at the discretion of the District Judge.
His Judgment showed he only considered the first ground for Appeal. ignored the other nine and issued false representations in Law and facts to refuse permission.
Once permission was refused there was no further right to appeal.
A Costs Hearing was set for 24th July 2019, to be heard by District Judge O'Neill. The Claimant made an application to recuse DJ O'Neill from the Costs Hearing on grounds she was biased. DJ O'Neill dismissed this Application just before the cost Hearing.
The Defendant had made a part 36 offer.The Clamant sent a written Part 36 acceptance letter on 23rd July (before the Hearing). The Defendant disputed the wording was correct. C re-stated his intention to accept the Part 36 Offer in Court before the Cost Hearing started, but the Defendant refused to agree this acceptance to prevent any wording changes. DJ O'Neill allowed the Hearing to proceed against the Claimants will. District Judge O'Neill gave full costs to the Defendant with no concessions.
C made a flippant comment to the Court by phone before this hearing which the Court official wrongly took as a threat, despite being told and accepting it wasn't a serious comment and no stated intent to forward it to the Judge. There was no threat. C was arrested for an alleged threat and faced a criminal Trial, and later cleared. The Judge rightly took the view there was no intent.
However, District Judge O'Neill was informed of an alleged threat and Police proceedings before the Hearing. Therefore by fact she was disqualified by conflict of interests, so should have stepped down. She was clearly in a position of being influenced.
C requested permission to appeal DJ O'Neill's refusal to recuse (stand down). HHJ Ralton refused permission
C requested permission to appeal the Costs awarded on grounds of (i) Acceptance of the offer, (ii) That his Grounds for Appeal were not properly considered - HHJ Raltonagain refused permission. C applied to transfer proceedings away from Bristol County Court in view of conflicts of interest - HHJ Ralton again refused.
C applied for an oral Hearings to re-consider these decisions.
C obtained Representation. He made an agreement on costs with the Defendant.
C withdrew the two outstanding appeals in part because he believes he will not get a fair Hearing with HHJ Ralton.

17. C made a request for permission for a Judicial Review which was refused by a factually false statement.