Neil Wilby Media

An Application hearing at Dudley County Court earlier this week saw a civil claim against Lancashire Constabulary (Lancs) re-instated after it was struck out on 7th February, 2024 over non-payment of a hearing fee.

Mr Recorder Daniel Robinson, sitting as a deputy district judge, heard that the claimants, Neil Wilkes from the Wolverhampton area and George Vella from the Dunstable area had not received the formal Notice of Hearing, sent out on 11th January, 2024, due to problems with the post and, accordingly, sought relief from sanctions under Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).

Mr Wilkes, speaking on behalf of both claimants, told the judge that postal issues had been raised at previous case management hearings and with court staff.

The long-running claim concerns alleged failures by the police force to deal with repeated harassment and malicious communication complaints made by both against Paul Ponting, a notorious internet troll, widely known as ‘The Ormskirk Vigilante‘ (read more here), who resides in the force area.

Lancs has filed and served a defence to the claim asserting that there is no identifiable cause of action in law and insufficient particulars.

The application by Messrs Wilkes and Vella to set aside the strike out was opposed by Lancs, although the convention in these matters is, generally, to adopt a neutral stance.

Their in-house solicitor, Teresa Entwistle, put forward two principal arguments: Firstly, that the Order to pay the hearing fee had still been complied with and, secondly, that the force would be prejudiced by way of witness availability. She accepted that both the force and the claimants were ‘trial ready’.

The submission regarding the fee was quickly swept aside by the judge who pointed the lawyer to CPR at rules 3.7A(i) -(ix) which states that relief from non-payment of fee sanction is conditional on the fee being paid. Ms Entwistle agreed that it was ‘a fair point’.

Mr Wilkes submitted that that was no prejudice to Lancs and that, further, he and Mr Vella had previously not opposed a relief from sanctions application made by Lancs over what he argued was a much more extensive and serious matter – late disclosure of documents, in breach of CPR, which caused significant delay.

After considering all the submissions made by the parties to the claim the judge went on to apply the three stage Denton test used by the courts when considering relief from sanction(s) applications (read more here).

At the first stage he found that the breach of CPR, not complying with a court Order (the non-payment of the fee) was ‘serious’. The other, lesser, test to be met under that rule is ‘significant’.

This obliged the judge to move onto the second stage: How and why did the breach occur? In doing so, he accepted the claimants’ submissions that the hearing notice had not been received and that they had acted promptly once they were made aware that the fee had not been paid.

The third stage of the test is the need for litigation to proceed efficiently and at proportionate cost. He noted Ms Entwistle’s prejudice point as important but, looking at C’s Application in the round, he found that circumstances pointed to the granting of relief.

He made an Order, ex-tempore, in the following broad terms:

1. Claim re-instated provided claimants file their fee remission forms before 4pm on 5th June, 2024.

2. If fee remission applications not successful, the hearing fee to be paid within a timeframe specified by the court at that point.

3. The trial window is now set between 1st July, 2024 and 3oth April, 2025. Estimated length of hearing is 3 days.

4. The parties to provide the court with dates to avoid by 10th June, 2024.

5. All previous Directions stand (Ms Entwistle, when asked if they were adequate, confirmed that they were).

The judge also requested that the claimants be pro-active in keping in touch with the court and the defendant thus avoiding postal difficulties, particularly in respect of the next Notice of Hearing.

Neil Wilby, the author of this article and a press observer at the above hearing, says:

“Irrespective of the merits of the claim, or otherwise, Lancashire Constabulary face an uncomfortable three days in court having their approach to Paul Ponting’s alleged offending against a still growing number of complainants, including myself, unpicked”.

“The performance of their solicitor, Teresa Entwistle, in court on Monday does not augur well for them, either. Particularly, the weak arguments put forward in order to try to frustrate the claimants’ Application.

“Her apparent lack of knowledge of basic Civil Procedure Rules was, quite frankly, embarrassing. Chiming very much with my own dealings with Lancs’ Legal Services Department.

“Ponting, 54, was charged on 30th May, 2024, with stalking with fear of violence offences under section 4 of the Protection of Harassment Act, 1997 (read more here). He was arrested by Greater Manchester Police (not Lancs) in March, 2023.

“Any or all wrongdoing is denied by Paul Ponting and he is expected to plead not guilty at his first appearance in this matter on 21st June, 2024 at Preston Magistrates’ Court”.

The Deputy Chief Constable of Lancashire Constabulary, Sam Mackenzie, has been afforded the standard courtesy of right of reply.

The email sent to the press office on 5th June, 2024, carrying that invitation, was not acknowledged.

Follow Neil Wilby on Twitter (here) and Neil Wilby Media on Facebook (here) for signposts to any updates.

Page last updated: Wednesday 12th June, 2024 at 0735 hours

Thank you for reading and a polite request: If you feel this article is of value and in the public interest, and wish to make a contribution to the running costs of this website, it would be very much appreciated. Donations can made securely (and anonymously if required), via Buy Me A Coffee at this link or via PayPal at this link.

Corrections: Please let me know if there is a mistake in this article. I will endeavour to correct it as soon as possible.

Picture credit:

Right of reply: If you are mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let me have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory it will be added to the article.

© Neil Wilby 2015-2024. Unauthorised use, or reproduction, of the material contained in this article, without permission from the author, is strictly prohibited. Extracts from, and links to, the article (or blog) may be used, provided that credit is given to Neil Wilby Media, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.