Ferraro v Halifax Plc & Anor

The High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a renewed application for permission to appeal where the applicable appellate procedure has already been exhausted. Applications pursuing issues previously determined, or seeking to reopen decisions through an impermissible route, may be dismissed as totally without merit.

A General Civil Restraint Order may be made where a party persists in issuing claims or making applications which are totally without merit, and an existing Extended Civil Restraint Order is insufficient or inappropriate.

Mr Ferraro applied for, among other matters, a stay or suspension of a possession order and permission to appeal against an Extended Civil Restraint Order made by HHJ Stewart QC. The applications arose from extensive earlier litigation concerning service charges, mortgage costs, possession and related claims involving Halifax plc and Albert Dock Management Ltd.

The Court of Appeal had already made an Extended Civil Restraint Order and had stated that the High Court in Liverpool had no jurisdiction to entertain further applications of the kind pursued. The central issues were whether the present applications could be entertained and whether a further restraint order was appropriate.

1. The applications for permission to appeal and related relief were dismissed. The High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the renewed applications. The applications were totally without merit.

2. The applicant’s complaints sought, in substance, to reopen decisions on the merits of long-standing disputes, including the amount debited to his mortgage account and findings made in earlier proceedings. The procedural route used could not provide a further appeal where permission had already been refused.

3. Under the Practice Direction to CPR Part 3.11, a General Civil Restraint Order may be made by a High Court judge where a party persists in issuing claims or making applications which are totally without merit, and an Extended Civil Restraint Order would not be sufficient or appropriate.

4. The history demonstrated persistent applications despite clear explanations and existing restraint orders. The existing orders were insufficient. The court therefore ordered that Mr Ferraro be restrained from bringing any claim or making any application in the High Court or any County Court without first obtaining permission from a judge nominated by the Presiding Judge of the Northern Circuit.

5. A further application issued after the hearing, relying on section 36 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, was also wholly without merit. The applicant did not suggest that he could pay the mortgage arrears within a reasonable period, but continued to dispute liability contrary to the earlier decision.

The judgment describes extensive prior proceedings and restraint orders, including decisions of the County Court, High Court and Court of Appeal. It records that the Court of Appeal had already made an Extended Civil Restraint Order in [2006] EWCA Civ 1489. The present applications were dismissed for want of jurisdiction and lack of merit.