top of page

Proceedings of The Medway County Court

There were three cases lodged at Medway County Court. The first one was taken out by Moore and Blatch solicitors, citing me as the Plaintiff, against Ms Jenny Lynn originally at Southampton County Court but which was subsequently transferred to Medway County Court under Claim No S0806411. It involved the car incident of 12 November 1997. Initially I had made it clear to Direct Line that it was free to conduct whatever proceedings it wished so long as I was not going to be liable for any of the costs if the case failed but on seeing it was not investigating the cirucumstances properly I then warned Direct Line (indirectly calling it a Toad of the government which I felt that was involved in attempting to cover up the matter) and Moore Blatch not to attempt to represent my interests to the Court. I wrote to Direct Line on 30 October 1998 with Reference to 9745538500/CLT1/107 - Claire Titmus; Dear Sir ’RE: A TOAD - TRAFFIC ACCIDENT ON 12 November 1997’ Thank you for your letter dated 26 October 1998 (sent first class but bearing a postmark of 28 October 1998 and delivered by ‘Royal Mail Customer Services’ in the postman’s second/‘special’ round on 29 October 1998) - in reply to my letter of 15 October 1998, faxed to ‘Direct Line’ at 9.45 am. In view of the urgency indicated by the double use of the phrase ‘as soon as possible’ in a 52-word letter concerning telephone conversations, I am writing to you today. I stress that I am unable to attend Court on 6 November 1998 at 2.00 pm. As I indicated from my letter of 15 October 1998, I am currently receiving intensive medical treatment for ill health and am therefore unable to prepare myself for an Arbitration Hearing/Court Case – I presume you are by now aware of my ‘spoilt’ photos and the replacement ‘slide film’ (accidentally; incidentally?) given to me by Boots, The Chemists? And as you may also have realised I do not trust solicitors/barristers appointed by ‘Direct Line’ or Third Parties in any Court Hearings/Proceedings, having now amply studied the real-life functioning of the ‘British Criminal’s Jestice System’. I have therefore concluded that only I will represent myself in Court for the complete recovery of my Uninsured Losses (which must now be quantified again) arising from that Toad-Traffic Accident on 12 November 1997. Accordingly, I will contact Direct Line for a mutually-convenient Arbitration Hearing Date at Medway County Court as soon as my health condition permits. I trust this will meet with your approval for the present; however, please write to me, even on a Sunday, if there are still any outstanding problems for the doctor to spin out. Incidentally, is my Policy already backed by Norwich Union for Accidental Death Benefit Plan; it is just that the Company has sent a reminder today with a new ‘deadline’ of 5 November 1998 for acceptance of terms - so time is running out, is it not the case?

Despite this letter a Hearing took place on 8 February 1999 before District Judge Diamond and in my absence a Court order was passed against me that Plaintiff's claim be dismissed with Judgement for the Defendant on its counterclaim of £1549.51. I was not informed of the Order until 2002 and as soon as I received a copy of the Order, I appealed against it both at Medway Country Court on 21st March 2002 and to the High Court without success. Direct Line Insurance Company met the costs awarded against me in the case.

The second case which I initiated was against the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) for failing to take my case to the Industrial Tribunal as I had requested. Following a telephone conversation with Mr Kynvin of Maidstone County Court on 12 July 2000 I received two N1 Claim Forms the first of which I submitted with a 22 page attachment document on 9 August 2000 to Medway County Court because it was nearer to where I lived. The brief details of Claim for a value of £200 were: Denial of access to Justiciary with respect to the application to Industrial Tribunal (Case Reference No VDL/U58.1B; LR/G; 23, of Employment Tribunal Service, Ashford Regional Station, Tufton House, Tufton Street, Ashford, Kent TN231RJ). The particulars of Claim were: Whilst giving me the impression of helping me with my legal claims, the Citizens Advice Bureau is not providing me with the required advice, for some strange reason.

The Medway County Court (MCC) issued me, on 14 August 2000, a Notice of Issue document (Claim No ME002953) which contained a Request for Judgement slip. The CAB defended against my Claim, initially asking the Court to refer the papers to the District Judge so that the court might consider whether the statement of case should be struck out pursuant to Rule 3.4 (2) (a) on the grounds that it discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim. This was rejected by the Judge but I was asked to fill in an N150 Allocation Questionnaire before 18 September 2000.

The CAB's defence document stated that 'The Defendant will object that the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim in this action disclose no reasonable cause of action against it. On 12 August 1998, the Claimant sought advice from a Citizens Advice Bureau advisor at the Gillingham bureau (contact sheet at pages 1 and 2 of this bundle). He indicated that for the previous 18 months he had been harassed by his employers and had been dismissed after a preliminary hearing. He told the advisor that he had appealed and that he had already tried to get help from a solicitor and had been offered £20,000 by his employers. He declined to tell the advisor the name of the solicitors. The Claimant asked for advice about making an application to an Industrial Tribunal and how much he might receive in damages if he became unemployed. The Claimant was given the Industrial Tribunal booklet and advised to complete the application form if he wanted to go ahead. He was advised that the bureau might well be able to help him if he called on a Tuesday or a Thursday when the advisors who knew most about the Employment Tribunal would be in attendance; he was informed that the bureau could not promise to accompany the Claimant or speak for him in court. The Claimant also sought, and was given, advice about the Job Seeker's Allowance. Nothing more was heard from the Claimant until 21 June 2000 when at about midday the Claimant sent a two page fax to the Gillingham bureau being his letter of 21 June 2000. Shortly after 1.00 pm on the same day the Claimant attended at the Gillingham bureau and delivered a hard copy of the same letter, this time with the 10 enclosures. On 28 June 2000 Alan Lawson, service manager of the Gillingham bureau having considered the Claimant's letter and enclosures, wrote to the Claimant and asked him to telephone as soon as possible and he made a file note as follows:- "From letters received from client it is unclear at what stage his case has got to at the Employment Tribunal. Letter sent to client requesting that he telephone me to discuss issues in greater detail". The Claimant has attached to his Claim Form a copy of a faxed letter to the Gillingham bureau (page 8) dated 30 June 2000 in which the Claimant maintains that he left a telephone message on the Bureau's ansaphone that morning "concerning the advisory outcome of my previous consultations with your office". The Defendant has no record of a message being left on the ansaphone on the number stated by the Claimant (573525) which is the number of the bureau's Money Advice Line, nor of having received the faxed letter itself. In any event on 25 July 2000 (3½ weeks later) the Claimant did telephone the Gillingham bureau and he spoke to Alan Lawson again (contact sheet page 6(2nd entry)). He told Mr Lawson that he, the Claimant had been suspended from work in April 1998, that he had the disciplinary hearing in July 1998, that his salary stopped in autumn 1998 but he continued to work up until the summer of 1999. The Claimant told Mr Lawson that the Employment Tribunal had accepted his effective date of termination as 24 June 1999 but nothing further. Mr Lawson informs me, and noted on the contact sheet, that he was about to mention to the Claimant that he could consider action against his solicitor and Mr Lawson was intending to look up the relevant information in order to advise the Claimant but the Claimant stated that he no longer wished to talk to Mr Lawson and terminated the call. Since July 2000 the Claimant has not further contacted the Bureau for advice and no advice has been given or offered to him. The Defendant is a registered charity whose purposes are (inter alia) to give free advice to the public. The Claimant has no contract with the Defendant and the Defendant cannot be in breach of contract. The Defendant is not acting and has not acted for the Claimant in relation to an Employment Tribunal claim. The Claimant either is or has been represented by solicitors. The Defendant has not denied the Claimant access to any Courts or Tribunals and has given no advice to the Claimant which was negligent or which could in any way have had this effect. The Claimant has no reasonable cause of action against the Defendant. The Defendant will seek an order for costs pursuant to Part 27.14 (d) of the Civil Procedure Rules on the grounds that the Claimant is behaving unreasonably in bringing this claim against the Defendant.

I did not fill in the allocation questionnaire before the deadline set and on 27 September 2000 MCC passed a General form of judgement or order: Before District Judge Caddick sitting at Medway County Court, Anchorage House, 47-67 High St, Chatham, Kent ME4 4DW. It is ordered that unless you, the claimant, do by 4.00 pm on 02 October 2000 file your allocation questionnaire your claim will be struck out. Dated 22 September 2000. I requested another N150 allocation questionnaire but received on 9 November 2000 an N150A allocation questionnaire limited to allocation to track Master's/District judge's directions which I duly completed requesting the case to be moved on to fast-track. I then telephoned the local Lord Chancellor's office in Gravesend and asked if the Lord Chancellor could order the MCC to send me with an N150 allocation questionnaire now that I was in a position to complete it to maximum impact as the Claimant of my case statement: a conspiracy of racial discrimination and harassment perpetrated against me by means of concerted criminal behaviour.' I then petitioned Her Majesty the Queen, dated 9 November 2000, as follows: Your Majesty, I have tried all the legal avenues open to ordinary subjects to access British Justiciary, having just spoken finally to the local Lord Chancellor’s Department to compel Medway County Court to issue me with a N150 Allocation Questionnaire now that I am able to complete it to maximum impact as the Claimant of my Case Statement, ‘A Conspiracy of Racial Discrimination and Harassment Perpetrated against Me By Means of Concerted Criminal Behaviour’; this after, somehow, concluding the detective work necessary to ascertain the full facts of the matter that I have been complaining about. Your Majesty, I read in my copy of the Reader’s Digest ‘You and Your Rights – An A to Z Guide to the Law’ that any British subject is entitled as a last resort to petition the Queen if he is dissatisfied with the actions or decisions of the government which acts in her name. It is with this in mind that I am hereby requesting you to intervene in this matter, as is constitutionally appropriate. Yours truly.

On 22 November 2000 I received a letter from Buckingham Palace from a Chief Correspondence Officer, Mrs Deborah Bean, stating, 'The Queen has asked me to thank you for your letter of 9th November expressing your wish to petition her on a 'rascism' matter. As a constitutional Sovereign, Her Majesty acts on the advice of her Ministers, and I have, therefore, been instructed to send your letter to the Lord Irvine of Lairg, the Lord Chancellor, so that he may know of your approach to Her Majesty on this matter, and may consider the points you raise'. The Court Service from Southside, 105 Victoria Street wrote a letter dated 21 December 2000: Thank you for your letter of 9 November 2000 to the Queen. Your letter has been passed to the Court Service which is responsible for the administration of the Crown and county courts in England and Wales. The Court Service is an Executive Agency of the Lord Chancellor's Department. You say you are a claimant in a civil case and you require a N150 form. This form is available from all county courts. It is not clear at what stage your case has reached. I am unable to give you any legal advice, however, you may wish to consider consulting a solicitor at your own expense or a Citizens Advice Bureau where you can obtain free legal advice. I am sorry that I cannot be of any further help in this matter. The Court Service in Victoria wrote under TO1934. I wrote back that my petition concerns a ‘racism matter’ in the Administration of Justice and telephoned the Court Service in Southside Victoria Street London to discuss the complaint. Since Judgement Order had still not been passed in ME002953 they had failed to meet the requirements of the Citizens Charter and so I wished to take the matter up with the next higher authority the Lord Chancellor's Office.

On 13 November 2000 I telephoned MCC and stated, 'I am phoning concerning ME002953 to report that the Citizens Advice Bureau has still not provided me with the required advice with regard to my claim. I therefore wanted my Claim Amount to rise to the Unlimited Amount category. Mrs Wren replied 'our case was struck out.' I went into MCC on 14 November and left £473 in cash on the table for Mrs S. Miller to pick up the balance of the £500 needed for the Unlimited Amount category of claims. On 14 November 2000, MCC returned £473 by cheque to me with a copy of the 27 September 2000 order that allocation questionnaire was required by 2 October and enclosing an N244 Application Notice. The letter stated that 'you may apply to the court to restore your claim and I enclose the appropriate forms (N244) for your attention. Should you wish to make such application please note that a £50 fee is payable.

At this point I decided to launch a case against the University of Greenwich itself. This third case at the Medway County Court stemmed from a discussion with Maidstone Court Centre on 20 November 2000 in which I explained that the Court Case in Medway County Court was caught up in procedural anomalies which despite efforts it was not possible to resolve to my satisfaction. This however still left me with my outstanding concern of how to seek legal damages from those organisations and individuals who have criminally conspired to maliciously destroy my scientific career the evidence for which is contained in the 22-page attachment-document that was lodged at Medway County Court with my N1 Claim Form. To enable me now to proceed with this Case I was requesting the legal clearance necessary that none of the specific issues of the harassment referred-to in the said 22-page attachment-document are any longer sub-judice to any proceedings outstanding at the Medway County Court, at the Ashford Employment Tribunal Service, at the Employment Appeals Tribunal, or at the Civil Appeals Office of the Royal Courts of Justice. In effect I sought the Judge's clearance to pursue damages against organisations and individuals who were reported to previous tribunals and courts as mitigating circumstances. The statement of case was: damages due to me arising from loss of my scientific career from the criminal actions against me of the University of Greenwich and co-conspirators as described in the 22 page attachment document lodged in Medway County Court. I was seeking £50,000 plus in compensation.

After initially issuing the number MS003408 Maidstone County Court returned my N1 Claim Form with a cheque for £500 having decided not to issue a Claim Number. It passed a General Form of Judgement or Order dated 5th/6th December 2000: Before District Judge Millward sitting at Maidstone Combined Court, Barker Road Maidstone, Kent ME16 8EQ. Upon the Claimant not appearing and the Defendant not appearing. The claim that you submitted to the court on the 4th December was referred to the District Judge who made the following order. What is the state of the proceedings in Medway County Court? Do they relate to the same cause of action? If so why is a new action being commenced here? If the proceedings in Medway have been concluded ie a judgment has been given and the claimant is dissatisfied with that judgment then the correct course is to appeal against that decision and not simply issue fresh proceedings in a different court. I issued the same Claim against the University of Greenwich and co-conspirators at Medway County Court on 8 February 2001 where it was accorded the Claim No ME010463.

On 19 February 2001 the Court sent me a Notice that Acknowledgment of Service has been filed document, stating that the Defendant filed an acknowledgment of Service on 19 February 2001. The defendant responded to the claim indicating an intention to defend all of the claim. The defendant has 28 days from the date of service of the claim form with particulars of claim, or of the particulars of claim, to file a defence. The University of Greenwich submitted that the matter of unfair dismissal and racial discrimination had already been considered by the Industrial Tribunal and was therefore an abuse of the process of the Medway County Court. A Court Order was passed by District Judge Caddick in my absence that the Claimant's statement of case be struck out as disclosing no reasonable grounds for claim and as being an abuse of the process of the Court. Claim be dismissed. Claimant shall pay Defendant's costs of claim and application summarily assessed at £755 (being legal fee of £600, VAT £105, and court fee paid £50) to be paid by Claimant to Defendant by 25 April 2001.

I was not permitted to Appeal against the Order, merely to request that the Order be set aside which I did on 27 April 2001. I obtained a transcript of the Hearing which made clear that the Judge was equivocal about whether or not the statement of case represented an abuse of the process of the court. The whole case transcript was not being issued to me and I complained to the Court Service Southside Victoria Street London. Miss T Holland wrote supporting the Transcribers signing the letter from the desk of 'Civil and Family Support' which I took as a threat that I was due to face prison term. The court would not let me bring in the officials of the British Poultry Science Journal as co-defendants and witnesses at any of the Hearings that were arranged because it stated that 'the claim was struck out on a question of law, not fact.' In the end I did not attend any of the hearings. On 24 July 2001 District Judge Caddick passed a judgement that upon reading Claimants file including correspondence between the Claimant and court, and upon neither party attending it is ordered that Claimants application dated 27 April 2001 be struck out.

On 16 August 2001 I took the ME010463 matter to the Masters Support Unit and the Court of Appeal and then to the Judge in Chambers Department of the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, filling in an Application Notice in which I stated that I wished an order to be made that 'I am the victim in the matter perverting the course of justice by court- and tribunal-associated staff against Dr S. Panigrahi submitted to the High Court since 16 August 2001'. An Appellant's Notice on car incident case SO806411 was also submitted to the Judge in Chambers Department on 29 March 2002 for the attention of Mr P Montserrat. This was passed on to the Supreme Court Circuit High Court Appeals Office which advised that the Appeal should begin at Medway County Court under a Circuit Judge. There Judge Cryan was appointed but he ruled that 'This appeal is years out of time, it requires leave. No application for leave is before me. Until one is made the appeal cannot progress.' I appealed this decision at Lewes Appeal Centre (Case C14/02) after checking with the High Court Appeals Office. The matter was considered by a Deputy High Court Judge Kennedy QC, who ruled that I had not got a potential appeal at the Lewes Appeal Centre. The matter went to the Court of Appeal where a case No of CC/2002/PTA/0408 was given, and I sent in a copy of the 17 April 2001 dated order of Medway County Court under ME010463 to the court on 22 May 2002 for its consideration. Concerning ME010463, Medway County Court wrote on 22 May 2002: The District Judge states that you did not attend the hearing on 11 April 2001 (order dated 17 April 2001) you then applied to set aside the order, the application was listed for 25th May 2001 and adjourned to 23rd July 2001. You did not attend so the application was struck out.' I copied this letter to the Court of Appeal and asked, 'has permission to Appeal been granted yet?

On 17 January 2002 I took out an Application Notice for my Claims in ME002953 (ME010463) to be restored by Medway County Court because the defendants did not file an adequate defence, implying that both were the same case and that CAB is to be considered a co-defendant of the University of Greenwich. No action was taken by the Court. On 13 March 2003 I applied again to Medway County Court to have ME002953 restored and insisting that ME002953 and ME010463 were part of the same case. The hearing was scheduled for 22 April 2003 which I did not attend. On 23 April 2003 Deputy District Judge Morling passed the judgement: upon hearing Counsel for the Defendant and the Claimant not attending, the claimant's application to adjourn be refused. The claimant's application to restore proceedings be dismissed. The claimant is to pay the defendant's costs at £150. I wrote back stating that I wished to appeal this order, and filled in an Appellant's Notice stating the grounds for appeal as being: I applied for the Hearing on 22 April 2003 to be postponed indefinitely not for it to be adjourned due to ill health. The reply to it was that the appeal had been filed out of time, therefore an application is required to appeal out of time. I challenged this judgement.

From 9 November 2001 I began a process of seeking a Judicial Review at the Administrative Court of the Royal Courts of Justice, of all Medway County Court Orders and decisions concerning proceedings under Claim Numbers SO806411, ME002953, and ME010463. I stated that I am a victim of a miscarriage of justice perpetrated by the British Criminal Justice System-associated individuals. The court titled the case, 'The Queen on the application of Panigrahi versus Medway County Court' and gave a Case No of CO/1680/2002. On 23 April 2002 Mr Justice Keith passed an order In the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division Administrative Court: The Claimant is under the impression that permission to proceed with his claim for judicial review has already been granted. That is incorrect. Permission has not been granted. In order for the court to decide whether permission should be granted the Claimant must (a) identify the decisions of Medway County Court which he wishes to challenge, (b) state the basis upon which he alleges that they are amenable to judicial review and (c) explain why permission to challenge them should be granted. I therefore direct the Claimant to lodge with the Administrative Court Office by 4.00 pm on Friday 3 May (a) copies of the orders of Medway County Court which he wishes to challenge, and (b) a statement setting out the basis upon which he alleges that they are amenable to judicial review and why permission to challenge them should be granted. If the claimant fails to comply with these directions, the claim will be struck out.' I wrote back on 30 April 2002: Dear Sir, Please send me a copy of the Defendant's response in order that I may reconsider the merits of my Application in the light of the Defendant's evidence.'

On 25 May 2002 I wrote to the French Consulate General for asylum to go and live in France, copying the letter to the Administrative Court and asking to be informed of the final outcome of Case no CO/1680/2002. Mr Justice Keith of the Administrative Court passed an Order dated 3 July 2002 that permission to apply for Judicial Review is hereby refused because 'despite being required to lodge with the Administrative Court a statement setting out the basis on which the Claimant alleges that these decisions are amenable to judicial review and why permission to challenge them should be granted, no such statement has been lodged. There is therefore no basis on which permission to proceed with the claim for judicial review can be granted. In addition, now that the decisions which the Claimant wishes to challenge are known, it is plain that this application for permission to proceed by way of judicial review is out of time.' I wrote back under Notice for renewal of claim for permission to apply for judicial review that, 'With due regard to the judgement made, not all the decisions which the Claimant wishes to challenge were available to me until now. The attached document is still under consideration at Lewes Appeal Centre. This application for Judicial Review to prevent the further perverting of the course of justice is therefore not out of time. On 5 August 2002 the Administrative Court wrote that the permission application has been listed for oral hearing on 20 August 2002. I wrote back asking who the other parties are for the Hearing and the Court Room and Time, but no reply was received. On 23 August 2002 Mr Justice Collins of the Administrative Court passed an Order under notification of the Court's decision following an oral hearing on the renewed application for permission to apply for Judicial Review that permission be refused: no attendance from either parties.

On 12 June 2002 Medway County Court wrote on Case SO806411: please note that your application for leave to appeal out of time has been re-listed before a Circuit Judge on 19 June 2002. The Judge has requested your attendance on this day. The document stated further as with earlier ME010463 proceedings that Please Note: This case may be released to another Judge, possibly at a different court, which I read again as a threat to have me referred to a Magistrates or a Crown Court. I therefore did not attend the Hearing and on 20 June 2002 Judge Cryan ordered that the Application for leave to appeal out of time is dismissed. I submitted the document to the Lewes Combined Court Centre for processing under the High Court Appeal. Mrs Phipps the Appeals Manager wrote that your Appeal has been forwarded to the Civil Appeals Office in London but on 23 August 2002 it wrote that the High Court does not have jurisdiction.

On 14 February 2002 I had applied to the Duty Judge at the Royal Courts of Justice Strand London for an injunction to freeze court proceedi