Legal Case for His Honour Judge Ralton's 

Misfeasance in Public Office.

​

 

      1. The Appellant set out ten Grounds for permission to Appeal dismissal of his Claim by Summary Judgment,

          under CPR52.21.This covered Legal and factual errors, procedural errors, matters not taken into

          consideration and evidence of bias by the Lower Court. On analysis Fourteen legal errors and eight acts that

             prejudiced the Claimant are identified.  See here for the legal, factual and procedural errors and evidence of Bias.

​

          The Lower Court dismissal of the Claim was wrong, unlawful and perverse. The claimant easily met and far

          exceeded the correct legal tests for Summary Judgment to defeat the Application. Loss of Chance Negligence 

          was made out. The Lower Court Judge did not perform the correct legal tests for Summary Judgment or Loss of

          Chance negligence nor conducted a lawful Hearing. She was biased. See main page for details.

​

     2. HHJ Ralton's Order refused permission to appeal and then again after an oral Hearing on 5th June 2019.

               Brief Reasons for refusing permission.

This appeal does not have a real prospect of success.

The Transcript reveals a long and careful judgment. The Judge has recorded that she has received and taken into account the Appellant’s documents. The Judge had the correct tests for summary judgment and striking out in mind. No good ground has been shown for disturbing the Judge’s decision and she was eanntitled to make the decisions that she did on the material before her. The Appellant’s contention that he interprets his case and evidence as sufficient does not assist him.

​

      3. His Order was wrong. Under the correct legal tests, the Claim easily defeated the Application so obviously had

          prospect of success. The Lower Court Judge had not read the evidence, did not perform the correct legal tests,

          and substantial grounds existed to disturb her decision by Appeal under CPR52.21. She was not entitled to act

          unlawfully, ignore submissions, make decisions based on her opinions and prejudice, and act with intent to dismiss

          the claim.

 

      4. Astonishingly HHJ Ralton again refused permission after an oral Hearing where the Appellant re-stated his Grounds

         for well over an hour. His Judgment showed deliberate intent to uphold the Lower Court decision to dismiss a claim 

         he knew (and was told), was wrongly and unlawfully dismissed. The Grounds for appeal were clearly arguable so

         could not be dismissed in a permission Hearing. HHJ Ralton ignored the Appellant's submissions and refused to

         allow him to argue case Law. He did not act in the interests of Justice.

​

     5. Seven Particulars for improper intent (acting in Bad Faith).

​

a. HHJ Ralton dismissed the first Ground for Appeal without proper consideration and improper intent. 

The Applicant submitted he was prejudiced by the District Judge not properly reading his evidence and inferences in his document, instead taking his points by oral submission. 

 

HHJ Ralton referred to the Lower Court Judgement to say DJ O'Neill said she considered the Claimant's documents and had his arguments on board. 

 

But to what extent was arguable. The DJ accepted she asked for the Claimant's points by oral submission because she hadn't read Claimant's evidence or inferences. She certainly based her judgment on what she wrote, not what she read. Evidence had to be read for context. This and her continuously interrupting the Claimant for the next point led to mis-representing his arguments, without reference to evidence or point on intent, then dismissing them because she didn't understand them. Nor did she ask for clarification. 

Breach of ECHR Article 6 on point of procedural error and unfairness in not reading or understanding the evidence and inferences, then refusing an appeal on Ground 1 which was clearly arguable (unjust). 

Bad Faith: HHJ Ralton wasn’t acting in the interests of justice but looking for any reason to refuse the Appeal.

b. Most seriously, HHJ Ralton ignored the other nine listed Grounds of Appeal in front of him.

Breach of ECHR Article 6 in not considering these Grounds for Appeal.

Bad Faith: His Judgment shows he issued a deliberate false statement at para 22, which falsely claimed they were all the same argument. He never further mentioned the Appellant's Grounds 2 to 10.  Not only were they not the same argument but none of the Appellant's grounds for appeal were the argument he claimed, so a blatant lie which dismissed 90% of the Appeal in one statement.

c. HHJ Ralton ignored Appellant's submissions telling him why the Claim was wrongly dismissed. In Court proceedings, Counsel makes submissions which lead the Judge to consider facts and Law. Here the Appellant was a litigant in person and although not professional, informed the Court of valid reasons under CPR52.12, which allowed an appeal and case law to show why the claim was wrongly dismissed for over an hour. Breach of ECHR Article 6: HHJ Ralton's judgment answered Ground 1(above) and referred to part of the submission on Ground 9 but otherwise ignored Grounds 2 to 10. Bad Faith: It was impossible for a Judge acting properly to refuse permission to appeal such obvious errors in Law and injustice. HHJ Ralton refused to accept submissions from a litigant in person. He refused to accept the Appelant could argue Case Law. He ignored submissions to maintain dismissal of the claim. Since informed, its enough to point to any error to confirm bad faith.

​​

d. HHJ Ralton accepted prejudice and bias and refused to consider a request for consideration of breach of ECHR article 6(1) - Right to a fair Hearing. The Appellant submitted evidence for this in Grounds 9 and 10 This included evidence showing the Lower Court Judge acted on the Defendant's behalf to dismiss the claim (actual bias) and found the Claimant committed crimes when cleared in a Trial (a collateral attack on a Crown Court decision), as well as statements showing non neutrality, prejudice against the Claimant and support for the Defendant. Bad Faith: HHJ Ralton acceptance of actual bias, and ignoring Ground 10, for consideration under the Human Rights Act, showed he was complicit with the Lower Court actions and supported injustice.

 

Having decided to ignore the Appeal, HHJ Ralton instead tried to justify the Lower Courts decision.

 

e. HHJ Ralton introduced a fundamental mis-representation in Law to refuse permission to Appeal. He stated that Counsel’s omission of evidence cannot be a legal cause of Negligence so it wasn't necessary to consider loss of chance. This despite the fact 'no evidence' caused dismissal of the Malicious Prosecution claim in 2011. In other words, he dismissed the cause of action by saying Negligence cannot be caused by omission of evidence which is obviously wrong in Law. Breach of ECHR Article 6: Dismissal by false legal arguments.

Bad Faith: This absurd and irrational mis-representation on the tort was obviously stated with intent to refuse permission, and maintain dismissal of the claim.

 

f. HHJ Ralton's judgment makes no sense. He acted with intent to refuse permission by issuing substantial

 false statements and mis-representations on the Claim in his Judgment (estimate twenty one), either deliberate falsehoods (lies) or statements reckless to the truth, to justify the dismissal. These include the following obvious lies on important material points. See Proof in (6) below.

​

• As stated above, he failed to refer to nine of ten Grounds for Appeal, falsely claiming they were all the same argument. (para 22).

​

• ​His Judgment falsely implied the Appellant had no evidence (para 22). This despite his being shown the highlighted evidence in the Skeleton Extension document at the Oral Hearing which he acknowledged, as well as evidence set out in the Skeleton for the Appeal.

​

• He falsely said no evidence was missing before the Court in 2011, where the Judge dismissed the claim for no evidence! (para 23), and falsely said nothing was missing before the Court (para 26) - in addition to no evidence, important reasons for no probable cause wasn't submitted by Counsel. This was clear from the Claimant's documents, verbal submissions and lower Court Judgment .

​

• ​He ridiculously claimed that no one doubted the District Judge had the wrong legal test in mind (para 19) - absurd, her errors in Law were the main Grounds for Appeal (e.g. Grounds 3,4,5,6,7). He falsely said he saw no legal errors (para 32) - absurd, the grounds for appeal were based on legal errors in Summary Judgment, tort of LOC Negligence and Malicious Prosecution, with references to case Law.

​

• ​He falsely said there was no trial within a trial (para 32) – an absurd statement, when it was obvious (and he was told) that the Lower Court conducted a Malicious Prosecution mini-trial to determine whether C's arguments would succeed in Malicious Prosecution Trial, to determine whether to allow his Negligence Claim. This was clear in the Lower Court Judgment from para 42 where the Judge said this.

​

• ​He falsely said that the Lower Court didn't make findings to dismiss the claim (para 31 and 33) - an absurd suggestion since the District Judge obviously made findings on contested matters, criminal Law and malicious Prosecution from para 42 of her Judgment to dismiss the Claimant's particulars and even stated she made findings.

Breach of ECHR Article 6: Dismissal by false legal and actual arguments.

​​

Bad Faith: There is no possible excuse for these statements. He lied to justify dismissal of a claim he knew was wrongly dismissed. They cannot be argued away by Legal Justification, negligence or incompetence. The chances of twenty one falsehoods in one Hearing, all going against the Claimant  are over 2 million to 1.

​

g. Refusal of permission to appeal Cost Order and refusal of Lower Court Judge to recuse from Cost Hearing.

HHJ Ralton was informed in the Grounds for Appeal of valid reasons under CPR52.21 to appeal Costs and the lower Court Judge's refusal to recuse. He knew the Lower Court Judge acted on the Defendant's behalf, when when they failed to dismiss a particular (so natural justice meant the Claimant succeeded) - actual bias. He knew it could be argued the Judge was disqualified from presiding over the costs Hearing due to conflict of interests and the case Law that showed this. Yet he refused permission to Appeal, stating the Claimant simply disagreed with her decisions and she was the best person to hear it. 

Bad Faith: It was impossible for any Judge acting properly to say these reasons could not be argued. HHJ Ralton refused the Claimant to argue bias, refused him to argue case Law (again). He was not acting in the interests of justice, but ignoring the Appellant (again) to cover up errors and bias by the lower Court Judge.

​​​

​

  6. Unfair Hearing in Breach of article 6 ECHR.

 

       Obviously HHJ Ralton's deliberate acts above caused an unfair Hearing and amounted to a Breach of article

       6 ECHR (Right to a Fair Hearing from an impartial tribunal), but in addition:

​​

a.  HHJ Ralton mis-represented the claim to say the claim was about standard of service (paras 26,31,33), when it was obviously about omission, primarily of evidence, in the 2011 Hearing.

 

b. At the Oral Hearing, HHJ Ralton prevented C arguing the reasons the Lower Court dismissed the Claim. He said it was not necessary to revisit the underlying Malicious Prosecution claim. True, but he bizarrely allowed the District Judge's findings on this tort from para 44 of her Judgment to stand. C was obviously unfairly prejudiced by not being able to argue the reasons for dismissal. HHJ Ralton should have said, DJ O'Neill was in error to have made findings on the underlying matter so allowed the appeal.

​

c. HHJ Ralton said dismissal was a discretionary matter for the District Judge. Firstly a SJ Hearing is a legal  test of whether the Claimant can argue particulars, not a balance of probability test, so not really a matter for discretion. Since C showed he could argue his claim, he showed it was wrongly dismissed so HHJ Ralton should have allowed the Appeal. Secondly, discretion didn't apply where Grounds for appeal under CPR52.21 existed - Legal errors, factual errors, matter not taken into account or procedural errors over-ride discretion. HHJ Ralton ignored the Grounds which enabled him to state this unfair conclusion.

​

d. The grounds to appeal costs were clearly arguable points for appeal, so should not have been refused by  permission to appeal.

​

​​

 7. Proof of a deliberate Lie to dismiss the claim.

​

​HHJ Ralton's statement at  Para 22 of his Judgment dismissed nine Grounds of Appeal in one go.

It was  False to say Claimant’s other nine grounds for appeal were the same argument; 

False to say Claimant asserted Counsel was negligent in how he drafted the claim; 

False to say Claimant asserted negligence in how the case was argued in 2011.

​

Proving this Lie: Consider Ground 3. Error in Law and interpretation - Judge did not consider how the Court should access evidence in a Malicious Prosecution claim or Loss of Chance Negligence Claim with respect to case Law, when she dismissed the evidence of Improper Motive. Had she done so, this claim could not have been dismissed.

​

This set out legal arguments in the Skeleton, repeated verbally at the Oral Hearing:

•        Thacker (supra) Kennedy LJ

•        Perry v Raleys Solicitors [2017] EWCA Civ 314 (28 April 2017)

•        Haithwaite v Thomson Snell & Passmore (a firm) [30.03.09] ….etc

That isn't what HHJ Ralton said the Appelant's Ground were at para 22. It's also clearly a legal argument where he claimed none existed at para 32. He is bang to rights caught lying.

​