Ebert v Venvill & Ors

The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal from a High Court judge's refusal to allow further challenges to a bankruptcy order where the applicant had repeatedly made unmeritorious applications. The court confirmed that permission under a Grepe v Loam order should be refused where no genuinely new point or fresh relevant evidence is put forward. The mandatory procedural wording of rule 6.206(3) of the Insolvency Rules does not entitle a litigant to bypass a prior restriction on making applications when vexatious conduct justifies permission being required.

Mr Ebert was adjudicated bankrupt by an order of Lloyd J dated 22 July 1997. He made numerous applications seeking annulment of the bankruptcy order. Many applications were dismissed at first instance and in earlier Court of Appeal rulings. Neuberger J in the Chancery Division refused Mr Ebert permission, under a prior Grepe v Loam order, to apply for annulment and refused permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Mr Ebert sought permission to appeal that refusal. The central question was whether, in the face of multiple earlier unsuccessful applications, the judge was right to refuse leave where no genuinely new point or fresh evidence was advanced.

1. Disposition. Permission to appeal from Neuberger J's refusal was refused. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was also refused.
2. Principle. Where a litigant has repeatedly made unsuccessful applications, a court may require permission before further applications may be entertained under a Grepe v Loam order. Permission may be refused unless a genuinely new point or fresh relevant evidence is shown.
3. Procedure and rule 6.206(3). The mandatory wording of rule 6.206(3) of the Insolvency Rules governs the procedure for admissible applications. The rule prescribes procedure but does not permit a litigant to circumvent a prior order requiring permission where vexatious conduct justifies that requirement.
4. Application to the facts. The judge examined the history and prior appellate decisions in detail. The present material raised no novel legal point and the asserted new evidence did not justify setting aside the prior restriction. The refusal of permission was plainly right.
5. Guidance for future cases. The court emphasised the need to protect court time and other litigants from repetitive and hopeless applications. Judges should explain refusals where appropriate and decline to entertain further applications absent genuinely new matters.
6. Order. Application for permission to appeal refused. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): This court (Brooke LJ and Robert Walker LJ) refused permission to appeal. ([1999] EWCA Civ 1763).
• Chancery Division (Bankruptcy): Neuberger J refused permission to apply for annulment under the existing Grepe v Loam order and refused permission to appeal (written judgment reported within this record).
• Earlier Court of Appeal rulings: Multiple prior Court of Appeal decisions had upheld orders restricting further applications (including a reserved judgment delivered 30 March 1999).