Car parks: Lawyer advises those challenging tickets
The Court of Appeal has given a lawyer the green light to challenge a decision to strike out his harassment claim against his former law firm.
In dismissing an appeal brought by Leeds firm BW Legal against a case management decision, the court said Mrs Justice Dias had acted permissibly in allowing Jackson Yamba to replead his claim before the appeal against the strike-out was heard.
Mr Yamba qualified “in effect” as a barrister/solicitor in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Lord Justice Birss recounted, and he is now a regulated foreign lawyer under the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s supervision.
He worked for BW Legal, a debt recovery firm instructed by several parking companies, until 2020.
He is now a director of Contestor Legal Services (CLS) – an unregulated business in Milton Keynes – and an employee of South London law firm Lawrence & Associates.
Birss LJ recorded: “Either via CLS as a lay representative or, for reserved matters as a solicitor’s employee via L&A, Mr Yamba works to draft legal documents and provide advocacy services to individuals and companies disputing parking charges.
“He says he has been very successful. He also contends that since the inception of CLS, BW has used every opportunity to bully him and to see him out of business, an allegation which is denied by BW.”
In July 2023, Mr Yamba sued BW for malicious prosecution in civil proceedings, the tort of abuse of process, and harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
His evidence included a letter from BW in September 2020 accusing him of breaching a confidentiality clause and acting in a manner detrimental to BW’s interests by providing legal advice and representation on parking charge notices.
BW also sent a letter in February 2021 to Bournemouth County Court, not copied to the other party, alleging that Mr Yamba was conducting litigation and holding himself out as a barrister/solicitor in England and Wales.
“Mr Yamba submits that the court dismissed these allegations in its decision of 10 August 2021,” Birss LJ said.
BW also reported him on the same grounds to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), which rejected the allegations. Mr Yamba said two other reports to the SRA have been rejected too.
BW admitted sending the letters and report but denied Mr Yamba’s claim, along with his allegations of malice and knowledge.
In September 2024, BW successfully applied to strike out the claim. On the harassment claim, the district judge held that the SRA report fell within an exception in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and could not be relied on, while the conduct in the county court did not amount to actionable harassment.
Mr Yamba sought permission to appeal. Dias J decided there was no real prospect of success in appealing the decisions on malicious civil prosecution or tortious abuse of process but did grant permission in relation to the harassment claim.
She concluded that it was “certainly not clear” that there were no reasonable grounds for a harassment claim.
Birss LJ recounted: “One dimension to be considered was the distinction between harassment under the 1997 Act and harassment at common law.
“The exception in the 1997 Act which applied to the SRA report did not (or at least may not) apply at common law and the judge also thought that in any case the SRA report might be relevant as part of a course of conduct even if it could not form a basis for a harassment claim under the Act.”
BW submitted that while the particulars of claim pleaded the 1997 Act, harassment at common law was not pleaded. However, the judge noted there was a reference to common law harassment in Mr Yamba’s reply.
To proceed further, Dias J said, the claim had to be repleaded properly and she gave directions to that effect.
Her order noted that Mr Yamba had confirmed that the harassment ceased upon the issue of proceedings and that his claim was accordingly confined to one for damages.
BW challenged the order but the Court of Appeal rejected it, finding that Dias J was giving permission to amend to replead the existing case of harassment and not to invent a new one.
Birss LJ said: “It is plainly intended that Mr Yamba will still have to persuade the judge that the allegations he wishes to rely on amount to a sufficiently arguable claim in harassment to avoid being struck out…
“It is simply going to allow the judge hearing the strike out appeal to see his harassment claim, put as clearly as Mr Yamba is able, and adjudicate on it.”
Leave a Comment