Ebert v Official Receiver

A court may make a Grepe v Loam order restricting further applications in persistent or abusive litigation. Where such an order requires applications for permission to be made in writing and dealt with on paper, the applicant has no entitlement to an oral hearing. An inaccurately drawn order stating that a hearing occurred does not alter the procedure actually followed or create a right to a hearing. Permission to appeal should be refused where the application raises no arguable point and merely repeats issues already determined.

The applicant sought permission to appeal against an order of Neuberger J refusing an application made under an earlier restriction order. That earlier order required her to obtain permission before taking further steps in or relating to bankruptcy proceedings, with any application for permission to be made in writing and dealt with on paper.

The application was refused because it raised nothing new. The order as drawn inaccurately stated that the application had been heard with the applicant appearing in person. The central issues were whether the applicant was entitled to challenge the underlying debt and whether the inaccurate order entitled her to an oral hearing before permission to appeal was considered.

1. Application refused. The court refused permission to appeal against Neuberger J’s refusal of the written application.
2. The earlier Grepe v Loam order was effective. Permission to appeal against that order had already been refused, so its procedural restrictions governed the application.
3. The applicant had no cause of action to set aside the debt. The attempt to reopen the debt had repeatedly been determined, and the application was treated as a continuation of her husband’s dispute rather than an independent challenge.
4. The applicant was not entitled to an oral hearing. Under the restriction order she was entitled to make a written submission to the judge, which she did. The fact that the order as drawn inaccurately recorded an oral hearing did not change the true procedural position.
5. The court concluded that there was no basis on which permission to appeal could properly be granted. A copy of the transcript was to be provided to the applicant at public expense.

• High Court, Chancery Division: Neuberger J made an order restricting further applications and later refused the applicant’s written application, including permission to appeal.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): permission to appeal was refused.