Gayle-Childs vTimmis & Anor

A bankrupt cannot pursue a personal claim forming part of the bankrupt estate unless authorised by the trustee in bankruptcy. Such claims vest in the trustee when the bankruptcy order is made. A later claim may also be unsustainable where an earlier claim based on the same facts has been struck out on its merits. Where a litigant has repeatedly brought claims that are totally without merit and persists after an earlier civil restraint order, the court may impose a general civil restraint order for the maximum permitted period.

The claimant brought two claims concerning an alleged payment of £100,000 into an account connected with Heritage. The defendants applied to strike out or stay the proceedings and sought a civil restraint order. The court considered whether the claimant was the same person who had previously brought related proceedings under different names and had been made bankrupt. It also considered the effect of an earlier merits-based strike-out concerning Mrs Timmis and the claimant’s history of repeated, meritless litigation.

1. Identity and bankruptcy. On the evidence, the claimant was the same individual who had previously litigated under the name Quinton Leslie Childs and who had been made bankrupt on 2 August 2010. The claimant’s denials lacked particularity, while the surrounding proceedings, name changes, evidence and timing supported that conclusion.
2. Vesting of claims. When the bankruptcy order was made, the claimant’s assets, including any claims relating to the £100,000 payment, vested in the trustee in bankruptcy. The Insolvency Service had confirmed that the bankrupt had not been authorised to pursue proceedings. The present claims were therefore unsustainable, irrespective of whether they might otherwise have had substance.
3. Additional bar in the Timmis proceedings. A related claim against Mrs Timmis concerning the same subject matter had previously been struck out on its merits because the cause of action had been assigned to GC Financial (London) Limited. The claimant could not bring a further claim against her on the same facts, even apart from the bankruptcy.
4. Civil restraint order. Both claims were totally without merit. The claimant had brought numerous other meritless claims and had persisted in litigating despite an earlier civil restraint order. The court considered that an extended order would be insufficient because the claims were not confined to one subject matter or defendant. A general civil restraint order was therefore made for two years, requiring the approval of a designated judge before proceedings could be brought in the High Court or county court.

First-instance decision. The judgment records earlier county court and High Court proceedings, including a previous civil restraint order and merits-based strike-out, but no appeal from those decisions is stated.