The High Court has thrown out a former asylum seeker’s claim for more than £2.4m from his former solicitors over an alleged breach of confidentiality.
Duncan Atkinson KC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge in KKK v Tsirilna (t/a Blokh Solicitors), ruled that the anonymised claimant had no real prospects of succeeding in the claim and he granted the law firm’s application for reverse summary judgment.
The claimant, KKK, had engaged the north London firm in a successful application for asylum in 2014. A second retainer was entered into for a further claim to the European Court of Human Rights but this was unsuccessful, and resulted in a complaint to the legal ombudsman alleging that the firm missed a deadline and breached confidentiality rules by releasing information to the Home Office. The ombudsman recommended a £50,000 payment based on the missed deadline, but the claimant issued further court proceedings for alleged breach of contract and confidentiality which he submitted caused significant harm and endangered his family.
The case was listed for 17 March but the claimant did not attend. The judge proceeded anyway after ruling that that the claimant had failed to give good reason for not attending, and he did not want the case to be open-ended.
The firm told the court that KKK had failed to point to any disclosed documents which he alleges could have caused him loss. It was submitted the firm was entitled to disclose documents through the asylum retainer which had an implied waiver of confidentiality. In any case, the firm said, the claimant could not show any threat to him from information being shared with the Home Office.
Having already been adjudicated by the ombudsman, the firm said this action was an abuse of process – although the judge said the complaints handler had in fact declined to rule on the confidentiality issue.
But the judge agreed that KKK failed to demonstrate that his address was a matter to be protected from disclosure, given the claimant and his partner had included it in public registers and records. The claimant did not provide evidence to demonstrate that there was a risk to the safety of himself and his family if his address was revealed.
A claim for breach of waiver was deemed to be ‘fanciful rather than realistic’ given that disclosure to the Home Office was in accordance with either the express or implied terms of the contract between firm and client.
Atkinson added: ‘There is no evidence before the court of any real threat to the claimant so as to cause him loss, and his claim as to loss within his particulars of claim is not made out.’ The judge further indicated that anonymity should be lifted, pending any appeal from the claimant, to help the firm deal with any potential complaint that might be made to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
