The Court of Appeal has dismissed Catherine Jules Thomas’s appeal against an order directing that limitation and delay issues in her civil action be tried as preliminary issues. The ruling leaves that order in place; it does not determine whether her claims are time-barred or dismiss the underlying action.
The High Court ordered the preliminary trial in October 2015. The issues concern claims linked to a hair sample taken in early 1997; arrests and detention in February 1997 and September 2000; alleged rumours and phone calls; alleged offers of money or other inducements to Martin Graham; and a search of Thomas’s home in September 2000. The order also addresses whether the relevant claims should be dismissed for want of prosecution or inordinate and inexcusable delay.
Thomas’s action, begun in 2007, seeks damages for alleged wrongful arrest and imprisonment, conspiracy, personal injury and breach of constitutional rights. She says the alleged conspiracy was ongoing and that deciding limitation issues would require evidence from almost the whole case, bringing little saving in time or cost. The defendants pleaded that the claims were time-barred and that there had been inordinate and inexcusable delay.
A separate application by Thomas to amend her statement of claim was awaiting a High Court decision and was contested. The Court of Appeal noted that a successful amendment could change or extend the claims, and that the preliminary-trial order could then be reviewed. It also explained that particulars may clarify a claim but cannot add a claim absent from the pleading itself.
The appeal court acknowledged the complexity of the litigation and the need for caution when ordering preliminary issues. It said, however, that the High Court judge had managed both this case and related proceedings involving Thomas’s partner, Ian Bailey, and was well placed to assess whether a preliminary hearing could be useful. Giving due deference to that discretionary case-management decision, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.