Sheikh v Beaumont

A general civil restraint order is justified where a party persists in issuing claims or making applications that are totally without merit, and a limited or extended order would not provide sufficient protection. The order must remain proportionate to the litigation history and the continuing risk of vexatious proceedings. The court may renew such an order for up to two years at a time. Where the evidence shows that one person is using another person’s name to pursue litigation, the order may properly extend to both individuals.

These were applications by defendants for two-year extensions of general civil restraint orders made against Miss Anal Sheikh and her mother, Mrs Rabia Sheikh. Earlier orders had restrained Miss Sheikh after repeated unmeritorious claims and applications concerning litigation arising from the Red River property dispute and proceedings against legal representatives. A later order also restrained Mrs Sheikh because the court considered that her daughter was using her name to circumvent the existing restraint.

The applications relied on continued emails, allegations of misconduct, attempted interventions and threatened proceedings against lawyers, judges and others. Mrs Sheikh was elderly and disabled, but the evidence showed that Miss Sheikh remained closely involved in her case. The central issue was whether renewal of general orders was necessary and proportionate, or whether a lesser form of civil restraint would suffice.

1. The applications were granted. The general civil restraint orders against Miss Sheikh and Mrs Sheikh were renewed for a further period of two years. The court was satisfied that renewal was both necessary and proportionate.

2. Under CPR 3.11 and Practice Direction 3C, the relevant question was whether the restrained party had persisted in issuing claims or making applications that were totally without merit, in circumstances where an extended civil restraint order would not be sufficient or appropriate. The court had to select the least extensive order that adequately addressed the demonstrated risk.

3. The history included repeated unmeritorious applications, proceedings against lawyers involved in earlier litigation, persistent allegations of fraud and corruption, and communications threatening further proceedings. The conduct had continued up to June 2015. It demonstrated a continuing risk that vexatious proceedings would be issued against persons whom Miss Sheikh regarded as responsible for her perceived grievances.

4. The risk extended to Mrs Sheikh. Although the court would ordinarily be sympathetic to an elderly and forgetful person, the evidence showed that Miss Sheikh had authored her mother’s witness statement and was substantially involved in her case. There was therefore a real possibility that proceedings would be issued in Mrs Sheikh’s name to pursue Miss Sheikh’s wider litigation objectives.

5. The existing restriction on applications in the proceedings brought by Mrs Sheikh against Mr Page and Mr Meares was unnecessary for future applications seeking civil restraint orders against either Mrs or Miss Sheikh. Miss Sheikh was to be added as a party to those proceedings for the purposes of the present and future applications.

6. The court declined to consider proposed default judgments and committal orders because no proper notice had been given. Contempt proceedings had to follow the prescribed procedure, beginning with an application notice and, where required, permission from the court.

Not stated in the judgment.