(a) The Court has sought to join the Claimant in the BTMeetMe Hearing listed for today at 11.40 am. The Court telephoned at least thrice the Claimant on the telephone number given by him in his application dated 19 June 2021 as 07967789619 but the telephone was not picked up.
(b) the application dated 19 June 2021 of the Claimant to adjourn be refused.
(c) today’s hearing is merely to assess costs. The District Judge today has no other jurisdiction.
(d) the court’s view is that all three costs schedules are reasonable and proportionate.
2. The Claim Form having been struck out judgment for the Defendant.
3. Claimant shall pay the Defendant’s costs assessed in total as £4170.00 payable by 4.00 pm on 5th July 2021.
Dated 21 June 2021
Have you lodged this Notice with the Court in Time: Yes
I confirm that the grounds of appeal are attached to this Notice
Section 11 Evidence in support of my application:
I as the Claimant, suffered from autism for most of my adult life, being a slow learner from my childhood when I could only manage Grades E, E, C, E, E, at Ordinary level, B, C, D at Advanced level, and a 2,I BSc degree. But I was hyperactive physically and mentally was a compulsive writer as your Honour will note from my scientific papers since totalling 35 when employed at the Natural Resources Institute; and my websites and the 11 books that I have written this summer that are published by Lulu Publishing Company.
This autistic behaviour was detected by Canada House Community Mental Health Institution 18 months ago and funding for out of area assessment sanctioned by the Medway Clinical Commissioning Group. Yet my Consultant Psychiatrists kept on misdiagnosing me as suffering from persistent delusional disorder and lately as paranoid schizophrenia for which anti-psychotic, anti-depressant and mood-stabilising medications that I do not need continue to be prescribed. Without the appropriate confirmation of my medical status I must have a new Trial to assess my damages and compensation claim against the National Health Service of £1 million for two spells of mental hospital confinement under Sectioning and the Care in the Community semi-detention since that have blighted my life. This is why I sought adjournment of the 21 June 2021 Hearing which was said prior to the Hearing to be a Pre-Trial Hearing for a Circuit Judge and not a Costs assessment Hearing for the Claimant or the Defendant from a District Judge. The Pre-Trial Hearing was to assess the forensic elements of my conduct over the past 24 years I was led to believe for I had been examined by a Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist Michael Kingham.
Notwithstanding we are where we are, and as things stand today, despite protests from my wife and me to Britton House I was twice discharged back into primary care but kept on enforced medications of risperidone, sertraline and depakote. I was not sent to Maudsley Hospital for autism confirmation because they require childhood data and we do not have anyone who knows my childhood story to come forth and give evidence to the Hospital to confirm or deny that I am autistic.
Hence, in this Appeal against District Judge Lightman's Order I am challenging his decision to award £4170 in Costs to the Defendant, the Cabinet Office which includes the Health Secretary Right Honourable Sajid Javid. The Costs awarded are not only excessive and unjustified, but Costs should be now be awarded to me of £2000 instead on the efforts that I have had to go through with the numerous emails that I have sent the Court of Central London since the Order including three n244 Application Notices with a £100 Court Fee, none of which got a satisfactory reply.
The other erring in law of District Judge Lightman judgement is that I interpret this Order of 21 June 2021 as being the first time that a Judgment has been explicitly made that my Claim E35YM660 was struck out by the original judge in January 2018 (Deputy District Judge Smith), who had given the Claimant 14 days to lodge the fuller particulars of Claim, and I had insisted to successive judges from HHHJ Backhous,, HHJ Letham and HHJ Parfitt that these time allocation were not sufficient for reasons cited above. The Claimant did not attend the Hearing of 21 June 2021 for duplicitous emails were bombarded into his email account that morning for which he had to seek the advice of his GP at the Surgery and a referral back to the Community Mental Health Team on a crisis-level emergency. The response of the Mental Health Team was abysmal and so were the Samaritans and later the Citizens Advice Bureau.
Thus, District Judge Lightman erred in law on three counts:
(a) on the striking out of the Claim E35YM660 finally;
(b) refusal to adjourn as previous judges refused also;
(c) ordering of the Costs to the defendant as premature and disproportionate.
I believe that the facts stated in Section 11 are true.
Date: 5 October 2021
Full Name: Dr Shantanu Panigrahi
Supporting Documents to be attached:
Section 12: In the Court of Appeal:
three copies of the appellant’s notice and three copies of the grounds of appeal on a separate
sheet attached to each appellant’s notice;
one additional copy of the appellant’s notice and one copy of the grounds of appeal for each
of the respondents;
one copy of the sealed (stamped by the court) order or tribunal determination being appealed;
a copy of any order giving or refusing permission to appeal together with a copy of the judge’s
reasons for allowing or refusing permission to appeal;
one copy of any witness statement or affidavit in support of any application included in the
where the decision of the lower court was itself made on appeal, a copy of the first order,
the reasons given by the judge who made it and the appellant’s notice of appeal against that
in a claim for judicial review or a statutory appeal a copy of the original decision which was the
subject of the application to the lower court;
one copy of the skeleton arguments in support of the appeal or application for permission to
a copy of the approved transcript of judgment; and
a copy of the Civil Legal Aid Certificate (if applicable)
where a claim relates to an Aarhus Convention claim, a schedule of the claimant’s financial
__________________________________________________________________________________GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
The original Order on E35YM660 was as follows:
General Form of Judgment or Order In the County Court at
Claim Number E35YM660
Date 14 January 2019
DR SHANTANU PANIGRAHI 1st Claimant
MRS THERESA MAY - PRIME MINISTER OF THE UNITED KINGDOM 1st Defendant
Before Deputy District Judge Smith sitting at the County Court at Central London, Central London, R. C. J, Thomas More Building, Royal Courts Of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL.
UPON review of the Court file;
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1) Proceedings stayed.
2) Unless the Claimant by 4pm on 28 January 2019 file and serve amended Particulars of Claim showing a cause of action against the Defendant's the claim be struck out.
3) Any party affected by this Order may apply to vary is or set it aside by applying on form N244, such application to be received in the Court Office no later than 14 days after service upon him or her of this Order.
Dated 4 January 2019
In compliance with GDPR requirements, the privacy notices sets out the standards that you can expect from the data about you in the context of civil court proceedings; how you can get access to a copy of your personal data; and what you can do if you think the standards are not being met. Please see link below for further information:
If the E35YM660 Claim had indeed been struck out de facto at 4.01 pm on 28 January 2019 because the Claimant had not amended the Particulars of Claim showing a cause of action against the Defendants, District Judge Lightman would only have been justified in assessing the Costs of the Defendants as submitted by the Defendants on that day, not the inflated costs submitted by the Defendant the Prime Minister on 21 June 2021 to the Court. So clearly the Court’s position is unsustainable and the Claim had never in fact been struck out until District Judge himself took the step of interpreting the proceedings to that effect in order to terminate the Claimant’s Appeal in the 19 June 2021-dated emailed n244 Application Notice to Set-aside and alter the Notice of Hearing proposed for that day.
Further, Deputy District Judge Smith in his January Order was mistaken in the execution of CPR procedures where a Claimant is being victimised by the State by blocking all access to information and legal representation and non-cooperation of the Mental Health and Law Enforcement Agencies that any ‘amended’ Particulars of Claim was required for assessment of the Claim. All that was required was evidence and this should have been listed for a Hearing of all parties including Victims of Panigrahi Association (VOPA) by summoning Dr Shivaji Panesar, Marty Caine, Fritz Wuehler, Nitin Bhardwaj, Cherie, Ed Mulhouse and Mr Paul Tiwana as well as Kent Police and the Independent Office for Police Conduct, the Legal Ombudsman, the Solicitors Regulation Authority, Bar Standards Board, the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution, Amnesty International, and the United Nations.
CLAIMANT’S SKELTON ARGUMENT TO THE COURT OF APPEAL
The Claimant contacted the Court of Central London repeatedly to obtain Full Written Reasons for the Judgment and Order of His Honour Judge Parfitt and these were not forthcoming. The Claimant requested the Transcript of the 21 June Hearing to be made available to him for his Appellant’s Notice and this was not responded to.
The following request was made on 5 October 2021 to the Court of Central London copied to the Civil Appeals Registry:
Permission to Appeal at the Court of Appeal: DJ Lightman's Order dated 21 June 2021 Supporting Documents under Section 12 of N161Appellants Notice
Further the Defendant has refused to allow the Claimant to contact the Respondents by email interpreting these communications as harassment for which Kent Police interrogated the Claimant at the Police Station of an invitation which was stated to be a summons for if the Claimant had not cooperated it was made clear that he would be arrested. The 25 criminal anonymous emails sent by VOPA to various people were not given to the Claimant for assessment and neither was an apology issued or further action taken against the Claimant, thereby proving the alleged State-organised persecution.