Salmon, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Judicial review is not the appropriate method for challenging decisions made by judges where statutory appeal routes exist. It is also a discretionary remedy and will generally be refused where the claim attempts to resurrect earlier proceedings in a different form, lacks particularity, or has an excessively wide ambit.

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 would be insufficient or inappropriate. The order requires permission before further proceedings are issued, but does not prevent a properly arguable claim from being brought.

The claimant sought permission to bring judicial review proceedings challenging Mr Justice Keith’s refusal of permission to appeal an order of Master Eyre striking out earlier human-rights proceedings. Those proceedings concerned allegations arising from earlier civil litigation involving trust and leasehold property.

Permission had previously been refused on paper by Mr Justice Pitchford and had been refused at an oral hearing by Mr Justice Keith. The claimant alleged breaches of Article 6 and sought declarations, damages and institutional remedies. The court also considered whether the claimant’s wider pattern of applications justified a civil restraint order.

1. Permission for judicial review refused. Judicial review was not the appropriate avenue for challenging decisions made by members of the judiciary. Statutory avenues of appeal existed and had to be followed.
2. Even if the court had jurisdiction, judicial review was discretionary. The claim sought, in substance, to resurrect earlier claims in a different form. Its wide ambit, lack of particularity and the number of defendants served made it inappropriate for judicial review.
3. General civil restraint order. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998 CPR 3.11 and Practice Direction 3PD.4, the High Court could make such an order of its own initiative where a party persisted in issuing claims or applications that were totally without merit and an extended order would not be sufficient or appropriate.
4. The claimant had pursued numerous applications concerning three separate subject-matter strands. Several had been refused twice and marked totally without merit. His evidence showed that he intended to continue bringing proceedings without limiting himself to those existing strands. An extended order would therefore require the court to speculate about future causes of action and would not adequately address the problem.
5. A general order was accordingly made. The claimant was restrained from issuing claims or making applications in the High Court or any county court without first obtaining permission from a nominated Administrative Court judge. The order did not prevent a properly arguable claim from being brought, because permission could be granted where the proposed claim had substance.

The claimant’s earlier proceedings were struck out by Master Eyre. Permission to appeal was refused on paper by Mr Justice Sullivan and then at an oral hearing by Mr Justice Keith. Permission to challenge Mr Justice Keith’s decision was refused on paper by Mr Justice Pitchford. The renewed application was refused by Mrs Justice Dobbs.