Smith vs Baker

This case involved a defamation and harassment counterclaim between Samuel Collingwood Smith and Esther Ruth Baker, both representing themselves, focusing on procedural compliance and the application of court rules.

TLDR:

• Smith's original claims were settled, leaving Baker's counterclaim for defamation and harassment.
• Smith applied to strike out Baker's counterclaim and for summary judgment.
• Baker applied for relief from sanctions and an extension of time for her Reply.
• The court denied Baker's applications and granted Smith's application to strike out the counterclaim.

The case began with Smith filing claims against Baker, which were eventually settled, leaving Baker's counterclaim for defamation and harassment as the only remaining issue. Both parties represented themselves, and the court had to address several procedural applications.

Baker sought relief from sanctions and an extension of time to file her Reply, which was due on 29 April 2022 but served on 25 July 2022. Smith applied to strike out Baker's counterclaim and for summary judgment.

The court considered Baker's application first, noting that both parties, despite being self-represented, had some legal knowledge. The court emphasized that self-represented litigants are subject to the same rules as represented parties.

Baker's previous litigation history, including Baker v Hemming and Lavery v Baker, was reviewed. The court noted that Baker had a history of non-compliance with procedural rules.

In the current proceedings, the court found that Baker's failure to serve a complete Amended Reply to Defence to Counterclaim was a serious breach. The court applied the three-stage test from Denton v T H White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906 and concluded that Baker had no good reason for her delay.

The court also considered all the circumstances of the case, including the need for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost. The court found that Baker's continued non-compliance made it impossible for the action to proceed.

The court struck out Baker's counterclaim and granted summary judgment in favor of Smith. The court also assessed costs, ordering Baker to pay Smith's costs of the applications and the hearing.

Legal representatives: Samuel Collingwood Smith (in person), Esther Ruth Baker (in person)

Judicial Panel: The Honourable Mr. Justice Griffiths

Case Citation Reference: [2022] EWHC 2176 (QB)