Harpaz, R (on the application of) v Cambridge County Court & Anor

A general civil restraint order may be made where a litigant persists in issuing claims or applications that are totally without merit, and an extended order is insufficient or inappropriate. An extended order is appropriate where the litigant’s repeated proceedings arise from a single grievance and there is a strong risk of further meritless litigation causing expense, stress and inconvenience. The court may restrict further proceedings concerning that grievance unless permission is first obtained. A claim or application issued without the required permission may be struck out automatically.

The claimant had brought a series of unsuccessful proceedings in the Cambridge County Court against Irwin Mitchell Solicitors and Mrs Hilary Clifford. Earlier claims had been struck out or summarily dismissed, and permission to appeal had failed. The claimant had also unsuccessfully sought permission for judicial review, the application being certified as totally without merit.

The interested parties applied for a civil restraint order. The central issues were whether the claimant had persisted in issuing claims or applications that were totally without merit and whether an extended civil restraint order was sufficient in the circumstances.

1. Application granted. The claimant’s proceedings were hopeless, had no chance of success and were totally without merit. The earlier conclusions of the county court judges and the High Court judge were plainly right.
2. The claimant had fundamentally misunderstood the solicitors’ role and the circumstances in which a solicitor acts for a client. The evidence showed that Irwin Mitchell acted for Mrs Clifford with her consent. The claimant’s belief that his witness statement required the other parties to respond to it and submit to interrogation was misconceived.
3. The relevant question was whether an extended civil restraint order was sufficient. The claimant had repeatedly pursued proceedings arising from one underlying grievance. His continuing preoccupation created a very strong risk of further claims, with unnecessary costs, stress and inconvenience to the parties and the court. An extended civil restraint order was therefore justified.
4. The order was to restrain the claimant from issuing claims or making applications in the High Court or any county court concerning the grievance without first obtaining permission from the nominated judge. Proceedings issued without permission would be struck out. The claimant could apply for amendment, discharge or permission to appeal only in accordance with the order.
5. The request for an order requiring Irwin Mitchell to provide a further witness statement about its representation of Mrs Clifford was refused. The claimant was ordered to pay the costs of the earlier application and of the present application. A payment on account of £7,000 was ordered within 14 days, with the balance to be assessed if not agreed.

The judgment records earlier unsuccessful proceedings in the Cambridge County Court and an unsuccessful application for permission to seek judicial review before Underhill J. This court granted an extended civil restraint order and made consequential costs orders.