Wicks v Parkin & Ors

An extended civil restraint order may be made where a party has persistently issued claims or applications which are totally without merit. Persistence requires more than repeated unsuccessful litigation: there must be an element of irrational refusal to accept adverse decisions. The court may impose the order where the litigant’s conduct threatens disproportionate use of court time and resources and further meritless proceedings are likely. The restraint must be necessary and proportionate. It may cover proceedings, applications, appeals, procedural steps and communications relating to the relevant dispute, subject to a permission mechanism.

The claimant, acting in person, had issued several claims concerning disputes with one defendant and later sued that defendant, court staff and judges over the conduct of the earlier litigation. Several claims were struck out as abusive, disclosed no reasonable grounds or were totally without merit. The claimant did not appeal the earlier decisions and continued to make numerous claims, applications, communications and allegations against those involved.

The matter was transferred from the Nottingham County Court to the High Court to determine whether an extended civil restraint order should be made under CPR rule 3.11 and Practice Direction 3C.

1. The court had power under CPR rule 3.11 and Practice Direction 3C paragraph 3.1 to make an extended civil restraint order where the claimant had persistently issued claims or made applications which were totally without merit.
2. Persistence requires an element of persistence in an irrational refusal to take no for an answer. The requirement does not demand that the litigant be habitual. This was the approach explained in Bhamjee v Forsdick [2004] 1 WLR 88 and referred to in R (Kumar) v Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs [2007] 1 WLR 536.
3. The rationale for civil restraint orders is the protection of the administration of justice from claims and applications which waste limited judicial and court-staff resources, consume public funds and impose unjustified costs on others. The court adopted the explanation in Nowak v The Nursing and Midwifery Council [2013] EWHC 1932 (QB).
4. The claimant had made multiple claims found to be totally without merit or abusive, had bombarded and harassed court staff, had refused to accept decisions at different levels and had failed to use the proper appeal processes. The court concluded that further totally meritless claims, applications or appeals were likely unless restrained.
5. An extended civil restraint order was therefore necessary and proportionate. For two years, the claimant was restrained from issuing or pursuing proceedings, applications, appeals or other steps, and from communicating with court staff, in relation to the identified matters, without first obtaining permission. The order included a paper-based permission procedure and provisions governing appeals, amendment, discharge and unauthorised documents.

The judgment was a first-instance decision determining whether an extended civil restraint order should be made after the proceedings were transferred from the Nottingham County Court to the High Court for that purpose.