R (Smith) v LB Camden  EWCA Civ 1207
Unsuccessful application for permission for second appeal against strike-out of claim for want of compliance with s139. (The claim was for damages of £100 billion for wrongful removal from his flat and for being forced to live in various mental health institutions where he claimed to have been assaulted many times.)
The transcript will remain below until published on Bailii.
Case No: A2/2011/0015 Neutral Citation Number:  EWCA Civ 1207 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION MR JUSTICE BURNETT Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: Thursday, 6 October 2011 Before: LORD JUSTICE KITCHIN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: ALEX SMITH Appellant v LONDON BOROUGH OF CAMDEN Respondent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (DAR Transcript of WordWave International Limited A Merrill Communications Company 165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The Appellant appeared in person. The Respondent did not appear and was not represented. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Judgment (Approved) Crown Copyright ©Lord Justice Kitchin: 1. This is an application by the appellant for permission to appeal against the order of Burnett J dated 26 November 2010 whereby he refused the appellant's application to vary or set aside the order of Master Fontaine dated 22 October 2010. Burnett J treated the application as an appeal and, accordingly, this is an application for permission for a second appeal. The Court of Appeal will not give permission for such a second appeal unless it considers that the appeal would raises an important point of principle or general practice or there is some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it. 2. The application arises in proceedings issued by the appellant on 3 August 2010 for damages of £100 billion for wrongfully removing him from his flat in York Way and forcing him to live in various mental health institutions where he claims to have been assaulted many times. 3. On 22 September 2010, Master Fontaine, on the application of the respondent, made an order striking out the claim on the basis that the appellant had not complied with section 139 of the Mental Health Act 1983 ("the Act"). This provides, so far as relevant: "(1) No person shall be liable, whether on the ground of want of jurisdiction or on any other ground, to any civil or criminal proceedings to which he would have been liable apart from this section in respect of any act purporting to be done in pursuance of this Act or any regulations or rules made under this Act, ... unless the act was done in bad faith or without reasonable care. (2) No civil proceedings shall be brought against any person in any court in respect of any such act without the leave of the High Court; and no criminal proceedings shall be brought against any person in any court in respect of any such act except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. .... (4) This section does not apply to proceedings against the Secretary of State or against a Strategic Health Authority, Local Health Board, Special Health Authority or Primary Care Trust or against a National Health Service trust established under the National Health Service Act 2006 or the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006 or NHS foundation trust or against the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland." 4. Practice direction 2(b) to CPR Part 2 provides that a Master or District Judge may not make an order in an application under section 139 of the Act for permission to bring proceedings. 5. The insuperable difficulty facing the appellant, as Master Fontaine and Burnett J explained, is that the acts of which he complains were purportedly done in pursuance of the Act and yet the appellant has never sought or obtained the leave of a High Court judge to bring or pursue the proceedings. The appellant has, at least at an earlier stage, also sought to rely on section 139(4) of the Act. However, as Burnett J held, the respondent is not any of the bodies referred to in section 139(4). Accordingly, I agree with Burnett J that an appeal has no prospect of success. His judgment is, I believe, plainly right. 6. In all the circumstances, I must refuse permission to appeal. I would add that this application does not in any event raise an important point of principle or general practice, nor is there some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it. Order: Permission refused
Possible Bailii link (not there when last checked, but it might have appeared since 0700 this morning!)