Douglas v The Ministry of Justice

A General Civil Restraint Order may be made where a litigant persistently issues claims or applications that are totally without merit, and an Extended Civil Restraint Order would not adequately protect the administration of justice. Persistence requires more than a single meritless claim. It involves an irrational refusal to accept adverse decisions or equivalent repeated conduct. A General Order may cover claims and applications on any subject and require permission before proceedings are issued or pursued. The court must assess the range and nature of the litigant’s conduct and whether a narrower order would provide sufficient protection. The purpose is to prevent abuse of court resources and unnecessary costs to other parties.

The Ministry of Justice applied for a General Civil Restraint Order against Leroy Douglas, a serving prisoner who had issued numerous claims concerning his treatment in prison. The application followed findings by HHJ Godsmark QC that several claims were totally without merit, together with other claims that had been struck out or had failed through defective service or non-compliance with court orders.

The application was transferred from Nottingham County Court to the High Court. The central issues were whether Mr Douglas had persistently issued claims that were totally without merit and whether an Extended Civil Restraint Order would be sufficient.

1. Application granted. A General Civil Restraint Order was made and the cases were retransferred to Nottingham County Court. The order required permission from the identified supervising judge before any claim could be issued or application made.
2. Under CPR rule 3.11 and Practice Direction 3C, an Extended Civil Restraint Order may be made where a party persistently issues claims or applications that are totally without merit. A General Civil Restraint Order is available where the party persists in that conduct and an Extended Order would not be sufficient or appropriate.
3. Persistence does not require habitual conduct. It requires an element of persistence in an irrational refusal to accept a refusal or adverse decision, as explained in Bhamjee v Forsdick [2004] 1 WLR 88. The court considered the findings in the recent case of Nowak v The Nursing and Midwifery Council [2013] EWHC 1932 (QB) as explaining the public-interest rationale for civil restraint orders: meritless litigation wastes court resources, consumes public funds and imposes unnecessary costs on others.
4. Mr Douglas had persistently issued meritless claims. Several claims had been found totally without merit after an oral hearing, while others had been struck out for disclosing no reasonable grounds, defective service or failure to comply with court orders. The evidence also showed a continuing pattern of issuing claims about many different incidents, prisons, defendants and aspects of prison life.
5. An Extended Order would not provide sufficient protection because the claims were not confined to one subject, incident, prison or defendant. Their only common feature was that they arose during imprisonment, and there was no reason to expect the conduct to stop if that circumstance changed. A General Order was therefore necessary to prevent further abuse and require any assertedly meritorious claim to be screened on a paper application for permission.

First-instance application transferred from Nottingham County Court to the High Court and retransferred after determination.