The solution for a dissatisfied litigant is not to threaten the judge, an Insolvency and Company Courts judge has noted, revealing ‘deep concern’ at threats made as he delivered judgment. 

The judgment in Irena Ferme v Simon Matthew Gwinnutt (as joint liquidator of Emma Property Management Limited) centres on an appeal against a refusal to admit a proof of debt.

ICC Judge Jones said that, in an oral judgment, he refused claimant Irena Ferme's application for a default judgment. Describing Ferme's conduct as ‘wholly unacceptable’, the judge said: ‘It is of deep concern and should be recorded that Ms Ferme threatened me verbally at the remote hearing as soon as I had delivered judgment. The threats, delivered in aggressive terms and manner, being implied from the words used when she asked me if I knew what happened to judges in America who made decisions such I had.'

The judge continued: ‘Absent any indication of apology or remorse from Ms Ferme, I stated at the time my disapproval, my conclusion that this was a contempt of court, and the reasons for my deciding nevertheless to continue to hear the second part of her application “without fear or favour”. The ability to do so is, after all, one of the fundamental reasons for judges having immunity from any action brought against them in reliance upon a judgment delivered by them. This was, nevertheless, wholly unacceptable conduct.

‘As also explained, if the decision I made was in error, Ms Ferme can apply for permission to appeal. That is an application which may be made to me and/or to a High Court judge. The solution of a dissatisfied litigant is not to threaten the judge.’

Discussing the case, the judge acknowledged the difficulties for a litigant in person and noted that opposing counsel 'provided as much assistance to the court as he could'. That included a detailed analysis of the law and drawing attention to evidence that Ferme might have referred to if she had had the assistance of lawyers. ‘I consider her behaviour towards him during the hearing and her repeated insistence that he had no right to be at the hearing completely inappropriate,’ the judge said. 

 

This article is now closed for comment.