Attacks on Judges

In the recent case of Irena Ferme v Simon Matthew Gwinnutt (as joint liquidator of Emma Property Management Limited ICC Judge Jones said that, in an oral judgment, he refused claimant Irena Ferme's application for a default judgment. Describing Ferme's conduct as ‘wholly unacceptable’, the judge said: ‘It is of deep concern and should be recorded that Ms Ferme threatened me verbally at the remote hearing as soon as I had delivered judgment. The threats, delivered in aggressive terms and manner, being implied from the words used when she asked me if I knew what happened to judges in America who made decisions such I had.'

The judge continued: ‘Absent any indication of apology or remorse from Ms Ferme, I stated at the time my disapproval, my conclusion that this was a contempt of court, and the reasons for my deciding nevertheless to continue to hear the second part of her application “without fear or favour”. The ability to do so is, after all, one of the fundamental reasons for judges having immunity from any action brought against them in reliance upon a judgment delivered by them. This was, nevertheless, wholly unacceptable conduct. As also explained, if the decision I made was in error, Ms Ferme can apply for permission to appeal. That is an application which may be made to me and/or to a High Court judge. The solution of a dissatisfied litigant is not to threaten the judge.’

Discussing the case, the judge acknowledged the difficulties for a litigant in person (i.e. someone appearing without legal representation) and noted that opposing counsel 'provided as much assistance to the court as he could'. That included a detailed analysis of the law and drawing attention to evidence that Ferme might have referred to if she had had the assistance of lawyers. ‘I consider her behaviour towards him during the hearing and her repeated insistence that he had no right to be at the hearing completely inappropriate,’ the judge said. 

Deeper consequences than a tongue-lashing awaited an unnamed individual in the case of X v The Transcription Agency LLP & Anor, when a litigant who made baseless allegations about a judge’s honesty ended up on the receiving end of an indemnity costs order for approximately £80,000.

In addition to continually attacking the honesty of the Judge (Mrs Justice Farbey), the unnamed individual ‘repeatedly goaded’ Government Legal Department lawyers representing Master Jennifer James to the extent that they complained of feeling harassed. According to the judgment, ‘X’ made unfounded assaults on the professional competence of solicitors acting against him, embarking on an ‘aggressive pursuit’ about their conduct and accusing them of having a ‘staggering ignorance’ of the civil procedure rules.

In relation to the master, the judge found that the claimant and his representatives pursued a ‘disputatious litigation strategy’ and added 'The claimant has throughout the litigation made baseless allegations against [Master James] which imply that she has been dishonest and behaved improperly.'

The lesson here for those conducting litigation is to focus on proving their case, rather than attacking their opponents (unless exceedingly warranted), and to be even more wary again of attacking their opponenet's legal representatives and the judiciary.

Oliver Kew

Published on 20/09/2023