Sturgess, R (on the application of) v Swansea County Court & Ors

Judicial review is a court of last resort. Where a claimant has an adequate right of appeal from a county court decision, that appellate route must be used instead of judicial review.

A civil restraint order does not prevent access to the courts. It requires prior permission and may be imposed where the statutory procedural conditions are met and the court considers the order necessary. A General Civil Restraint Order requires persistence in issuing claims or applications that are totally without merit, ordinarily meaning more than two such claims or applications. The court must then exercise its discretion, considering all the circumstances and the need to protect parties and finite court resources.

The claimant brought four Administrative Court claims concerning county court decisions, police complaints and a proposed eviction from his property. He also sought permission to pursue further claims against several individuals and organisations.

The claims arose against a background of numerous unsuccessful county court and judicial review proceedings, earlier civil restraint orders, and repeated findings that his claims or applications were totally without merit. The court considered whether the claims could properly proceed by judicial review, whether the claimant had breached an existing restraint order, and whether a further General Civil Restraint Order should be imposed.

1. Judicial review and alternative remedies. The Administrative Court is a court of last resort. Where a county court decision carries a right of appeal, the claimant must pursue that route rather than challenge the decision by judicial review. The claims concerning the striking out of the county court claim and the refusal of a stay were therefore refused permission. The latter was also an abusive collateral challenge to a valid possession order.
2. Claims within the existing order. The claims concerning the police and the existing civil restraint order fell within the Extended Civil Restraint Order made on 14 June 2013. They were issued without the required permission and were therefore abusive and totally without merit. The police-related claim was also premature.
3. General Civil Restraint Order. Under CPR Rule 3.3(7), the court had to consider whether to impose a further order. The process had two stages. First, the court had to determine whether it had jurisdiction. For a General Civil Restraint Order, CPR 3 PD 3C, paragraph 4.1 required persistence in issuing claims or making applications that were totally without merit. The requirement of persistence was satisfied where there had been more than two such claims or applications, as explained in Courtman v Ludlam [2009] EWHC 2067 (Ch).
4. Second, the court had to decide whether an order was appropriate in the circumstances. The claimant’s numerous meritless proceedings, serious allegations, failure to stop after earlier orders, attempts to evade their scope and continuing expansion of the litigation justified a General Civil Restraint Order covering all courts. The order still permitted meritorious claims, applications and appeals, but required prior permission.
5. The four applications for judicial review and all proposed new claims were refused. The Extended Civil Restraint Order was revoked and replaced by a General Civil Restraint Order lasting until 5 March 2016 unless renewed. The stay of eviction was lifted, and the Chief Constable was awarded £1,208.04 costs on an indemnity basis.

This was a first-instance Administrative Court decision. The judgment records earlier county court decisions, refusals of permission to appeal and prior High Court orders, but no appeal from the present decision.