The High Court has allowed five claims brought by GE Capital Woodchester Limited and GE Capital Woodchester Finance Limited, trading as GE Money, to continue, while striking out two requested remedies in a dispute connected to hundreds of Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) cases.
In a judgment delivered on 2 March 2016, Ms Justice O’Regan considered applications by Staunton Fisher Limited and David and Catherine Coleman, practising as Coleman Legal Partners, to strike out or stay GE’s proceedings. The applications were made before a trial of GE’s claims.
GE’s statement of claim said it had been served with more than 220 District Court cases and one High Court case since May 2013, all issued by Coleman Legal Partners and arising from PPI sales. GE alleged abuse of process, maintenance and champerty, conspiracy, unlawful means and reputational harm, and sought damages and other relief. Those were allegations, not findings in this judgment.
The defendants argued that the action was premature, disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was intended to stifle the PPI claims. GE disputed that and said it had already suffered damage. The court assessed the claim at its highest, applying the standards for striking out proceedings before trial.
The judge held that GE’s claims numbered 1 to 5 were reasonably statable and should be allowed to continue. This was a decision about whether those claims could proceed, not a determination that the allegations were proved.
The court struck out the request in paragraph 7 of GE’s statement of claim to restrain the defendants from participating in the existing PPI cases or future proceedings against GE. It noted that GE was content for the PPI plaintiffs’ cases to continue if the defendants were removed, and found no claimed prejudice or significant risk of confidential information being disclosed or misused. The proposed removal would serve no purpose, the judge said, and the claim was punitive.
The court also struck out the request in paragraph 8 for the defendants to pay GE’s costs of defending the PPI cases. Costs in those cases were matters for the judges hearing them, and the High Court said it should not decide them in advance. The judgment records an order striking out the claims in paragraphs 7 and 8; it does not dismiss the five claims the judge found reasonably statable.