Mashate v Kaguta

Factual and Procedural Background

The claimant issued a claim form in November 2006 against the defendant, identified as a foreign head of state, with service attempted at an overseas diplomatic address. The claim lacked a coherent cause of action and default judgment was initially entered but later set aside. Subsequent procedural steps included orders for amended particulars, a stay on proceedings, and repeated applications related to service outside the jurisdiction. An order was made in October 2009 permitting service out of jurisdiction and extending the claim form's validity, but this order was later set aside by HHJ Seymour QC in October 2011, who also imposed an extended civil restraint order on the claimant to prevent vexatious litigation without prior permission. The claimant sought renewed permission to appeal this latter order after an earlier refusal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the stay imposed by Blair J on the proceedings was valid and whether it was lifted by subsequent orders.
2. Whether the order permitting service out of jurisdiction complied with procedural rules and the State Immunity Act 1978.
3. Whether the extended civil restraint order imposed by HHJ Seymour QC was appropriate and subject to appeal.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The stay imposed by Blair J was either a nullity or was impliedly lifted by the order permitting service out of jurisdiction.
• The claimant contended that the extended civil restraint order was unjustified and sought permission to appeal it.

Respondent's Arguments

• The respondent urged the court to impose protective measures, including the civil restraint order, to prevent vexatious and unmeritorious applications.
• Argued that the stay was valid and had not been lifted, and that service out of jurisdiction had procedural irregularities.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the procedural history and found that the stay imposed by Blair J was valid, having been granted on notice and not lifted by any subsequent order, including that of Master Leslie. The order permitting service out of jurisdiction was found to be irregular and in breach of CPR 6.37 and the State Immunity Act 1978, particularly because it failed to identify grounds for jurisdiction, lacked evidence of a reasonable prospect of success, and authorised impermissible methods of service. The court inferred that Master Leslie had overlooked the existence of the stay. Regarding the extended civil restraint order, the court acknowledged that it was imposed largely on the judge's own motion but was supported by the respondent’s submissions and the claimant's history of unmeritorious applications. The court granted permission to appeal only on the issue of the civil restraint order, finding arguable grounds for appeal on that point, while refusing permission on all other issues.

Holding and Implications

The court's final decision was to ALLOW THE APPLICATION IN PART. Permission to appeal was refused concerning the setting aside of the permission to serve out of jurisdiction and the setting aside of the default judgment, affirming the validity of the stay and the procedural irregularities in service. However, permission to appeal was granted solely with respect to the extended civil restraint order imposed by HHJ Seymour QC.

The direct effect is that the claimant remains restrained from issuing claims or applications related to these proceedings without prior permission, but may challenge this restraint on appeal. No new legal precedent was established; the decision reinforces the importance of adherence to procedural rules governing service out of jurisdiction and the proper management of vexatious litigation involving foreign sovereign defendants.