Richardson v Google UK Ltd & Anor

An extended civil restraint order may be made where a party has persistently issued claims or applications that are totally without merit. The order may extend to related claims or applications in other proceedings and may require prior permission before further steps are taken. The jurisdiction addresses repeated litigation, abuse of process and associated harassment. Relevant conduct may include the party’s litigation behaviour in other proceedings where it assists in assessing the likelihood of repetition. An order may be imposed for up to two years where the evidence shows persistent vexatious conduct and continuing risk.

Google UK Ltd applied for an extended civil restraint order against the claimant. The claimant had issued several claims and applications concerning alleged liability for content published through Google services. Earlier claims or applications had been dismissed or found totally without merit, and related proceedings had been discontinued. The evidence also described repeated correspondence, threats of complaints, harassment of legal representatives and court staff, and a pattern of issuing and discontinuing proceedings.

The central issue was whether the statutory and inherent jurisdictional threshold for an extended civil restraint order was satisfied and whether an order for the maximum period was justified.

1. Jurisdiction and threshold. CPR practice direction 3C permits an extended civil restraint order where a party has persistently issued claims or made applications that are totally without merit. The jurisdiction derives from the court’s inherent jurisdiction. The order is directed at repeated conduct across more than one set of proceedings, not merely conduct in the instant proceedings.
2. Scope of an order. An order made by a High Court judge may restrain claims or applications in the High Court or county court concerning, relating to, touching upon or leading to the proceedings in which the order is made, unless prior permission is obtained. The order may also regulate applications to amend or discharge it and permission to appeal.
3. Abuse of process. The claimant’s repeated attempts to pursue substantially the same subject matter, to re-litigate issues already decided adversely, or to mount a collateral attack on a final decision were relevant to the application. The principles identified in Bhamjee v Forsdick [2004] 1 WLR 88 closely paralleled the conduct shown in the evidence.
4. Assessment of future conduct. In deciding whether restraint was necessary, the court could consider the claimant’s conduct towards other parties, the pattern of issuing and discontinuing proceedings, threats and excessive correspondence, harassment, and the absence of any practical financial incentive to stop. The evidence demonstrated a continuing risk of vexatious and abusive conduct.
5. Disposition. The evidence amply justified an extended civil restraint order. The order was made for the requested maximum period of two years.

First-instance application. No prior appellate history is stated in the judgment.