Senior -Milne, R (on the application of) v HM Treasury

An extended civil restraint order may be made where the court is satisfied, in all the circumstances, that a person has persistently issued claims which are totally without merit. The jurisdiction protects court resources, court users and other parties from abusive or wasteful serial litigation. Once the threshold is met, the order may restrain claims and applications across the specified courts and may require prior permission from a nominated judge.

The claimant appeared in person in proceedings concerning his repeated litigation activities. Having reviewed the history of the matter and heard the claimant’s submissions, the High Court considered whether to make an extended civil restraint order under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 3.11 and Practice Direction 3C.

The court acted of its own motion. The central issue was whether the claimant had persistently issued claims which were totally without merit and whether an extended order was therefore appropriate.

1. Order made. The court issued an extended civil restraint order against the claimant for two years, until 26 February 2015.
2. The applicable test under rule 3.11 and Practice Direction 3C was whether, in all the circumstances, the subject of the order had persistently issued claims which were totally without merit.
3. The claimant’s current claims were manifestly totally without merit. The court also relied on the history of his litigation, including orders made by HHJ Behrens on 16 August 2011 and 20 September 2011. That history demonstrated persistent, obsessive and wasteful litigation, with disregard for court time, court staff and other litigants.
4. The order restrained the claimant from issuing claims or making applications in the High Court, county courts or any other specified court concerning matters involving, relating to, touching upon or leading to the proceedings, unless he first obtained permission from the nominated judge or, in that judge’s absence, the alternative judge identified in the order.
5. Applications for permission, amendment or discharge had to be made in writing after notice to the other parties, with at least seven days for response. Applications would be determined without a hearing. Repeated totally meritless permission applications could result in a final refusal without a right of appeal unless permission to appeal was granted.

First-instance decision. The judgment records the claimant’s intention to appeal, but does not state that an appeal had been determined.