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

Repeated attempts to litigate matters already finally determined constitute an abuse of process and may be struck out as totally without merit. A civil restraint order is appropriate where a litigant persistently issues claims or applications with no proper legal basis and refuses to accept adverse decisions. An extended civil restraint order may be made for persistent vexatious litigation within a defined subject area. A general civil restraint order is reserved for the rare case where an extended order would be insufficient or liable to evasion. The court must consider the history and pattern of litigation, including repeated proceedings, unparticularised allegations, proceedings against connected persons, and breaches or attempted circumvention of earlier restraints.

The defendant bank applied in two related High Court proceedings to strike out claims brought by Mrs Moosun, her minor children and, in one claim, two dogs. The claims concerned the bank’s exercise of mortgage rights, earlier possession proceedings, the sale of the property, alleged discrimination and alleged breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights. The bank also sought a general or extended civil restraint order against Mrs Moosun.

The court considered whether the children’s claims were procedurally effective, whether dogs could be claimants, whether the claims sought to reopen matters already decided, and whether Mrs Moosun’s litigation history justified a general civil restraint order.

1. The claims brought in the names of the minor children were struck out. Under CPR 21.2, no litigation friend had been appointed and no order permitted the children to conduct proceedings.
2. The claims brought in the names of the dogs were also struck out. CPR Part 2.3(1) defines a claimant as a person who makes a claim, and a dog is not a person capable of bringing proceedings or giving instructions.
3. The first claim sought to reopen the bank’s entitlement under the mortgage to combine accounts and take possession. Those issues had already been finally determined in the possession proceedings and subsequent applications and judicial review proceedings. Re-litigation was therefore an abuse of process, applying Virgin Atlantic Airways v Zodiac Seats [2014] AC 160. The first claim was struck out as totally without merit.
4. The second claim repeated the same matters and added unsupported allegations of discrimination and Convention breaches. It gave no proper particulars, identified no protected characteristic, and did not substantiate the claimed sum. The claim was struck out as an abuse of process and totally without merit. A claim under the Equality Act 2010 was also properly brought in the county court under section 114.
5. Having struck out the statements of case as totally without merit, the court had to consider a civil restraint order under CPR 3.4(6)(b). An extended order is suitable where a party persistently issues totally without merit claims or applications concerning defined matters. A general order is wider and appropriate only in the rare case where an extended order would be insufficient or inappropriate. The court applied the guidance in Bhamjee v Forsdick [2004] 1 WLR 88, Mahajan and Department for Constitutional Affairs [2004] EWCA Civ 946 and Attorney General v Barker [2001] FLR 759.
6. Mrs Moosun’s repeated proceedings, unparticularised allegations, claims against persons connected with the earlier litigation, and attempts to evade a limited restraint order demonstrated persistent vexatious litigation. An extended order could not reliably identify or prevent the new proceedings contemplated. A general civil restraint order was therefore made for two years, requiring permission from a judge before proceedings could be brought in the High Court or any county court.

The judgment was a first-instance decision on applications to strike out claims and impose civil restraint restrictions. It records extensive earlier possession, appeal, judicial review and interim application proceedings, but no appeal from the present decision.