Moosun, & Ors v HSBC Bank Plc (t/a First Direct)

The court struck out multiple parts of two claims brought by Mrs Moosun and made a two-year general civil restraint order against her. Claims purporting to be brought by her minor children were struck out for want of a litigation friend (CPR 21.2) and claims purporting to be brought by dogs were struck out because animals are not persons capable of litigating (CPR Part 2.3(1)). The substantive claims by Mrs Moosun against the bank and its solicitors were struck out as an abuse of process, being repetitious re-litigation of matters already finally determined and, in the judge's view, totally without merit. Practice Direction 3C and CPR 3.11/CPR 3.4(6)(b) were applied in considering and justifying the making of a civil restraint order.

Background and parties: Mrs Sabrina Shafika Moosun (claimant) brought multiple proceedings in the Chancery Division against HSBC Bank plc trading as First Direct and, in one claim, the bank's solicitors Shoosmiths LLP. Earlier proceedings had concerned mortgage enforcement and possession of Mrs Moosun's former home, Jasmine Cottage, following an enforcement notice issued by the local planning authority. The bank had exercised mortgage powers in 2009, possession proceedings followed and a long history of applications, appeals and judicial review attempts ensued, repeatedly dismissed as without merit.

Nature of the applications before the court: The bank applied to strike out two claims issued by Mrs Moosun (HC-2015-003413 and HC-2015-004041) and, alternatively, sought a general or extended civil restraint order against Mrs Moosun to prevent further meritless litigation.

Issues framed by the court:

• whether claims purportedly brought by infant children were properly pleaded and should be struck out for lack of a litigation friend (CPR 21.2);
• whether claims purportedly brought by animals could proceed (CPR Part 2.3(1));
• whether Mrs Moosun's substantive claims were an abuse of process by re‑litigating matters already finally determined;
• whether a civil restraint order (extended or general) should be made under Practice Direction 3C and CPR 3.11 in light of persistent, totally without merit litigation.

Court's reasoning and disposition: The judge concluded that the children’s claims must be struck out because no litigation friend had been appointed and no permission had been given (CPR 21.2). Claims advanced in the names of the dogs were struck out because animals are not persons and cannot litigate (CPR Part 2.3(1)). The substantive Chancery claims by Mrs Moosun were struck out on the basis that they amounted to abusive re-litigation of issues previously and finally decided in county court possession proceedings and subsequent refusals of judicial review and appeals; those earlier decisions had repeatedly found her applications to be without merit. The claims were therefore an abuse of process and were regarded as totally without merit. Given the persistent pattern of issuing meritless proceedings, often in different forms and tribunals, and her breach of a prior limited civil restraint order, the judge found that a general civil restraint order was necessary (Practice Direction 3C; CPR 3.11). The judge considered an extended civil restraint order would be insufficient because Mrs Moosun had shown a propensity to evade narrower restraints. The court directed that a general civil restraint order be made for two years, with the detail to be settled with counsel.

Subsidiary findings: The judge noted misapplication of remedies and procedure by Mrs Moosun (for example, an Equality Act 2010 claim pleaded in the Chancery Division rather than the county court under section 114) and repeated unsupported references to breaches of Convention rights (Article 6 and Article 8) and conspiracy allegations. Prior limited civil restraint orders and multiple refusals of permission to appeal or judicial review were recorded as part of the history justifying the restraint order.

This first instance claim was disposed of by striking out the claims brought by the minor children (for want of a litigation friend) and by striking out the claims purporting to be brought by the dogs. The substantive claims by Mrs Moosun were struck out as an abuse of process and totally without merit because they repeatedly sought to relitigate issues already finally decided. For the same history of persistent and meritless litigation, the court made a two‑year general civil restraint order against Mrs Moosun to prevent further unmeritorious proceedings without prior permission of a nominated judge.