Veluppillai v Chief Land Registrar & Ors

Applications issued in breach of an extended civil restraint order are automatically struck out or dismissed under the applicable practice direction and are treated as nullities. A claim may additionally be struck out as an abuse of process where it is legally impossible or constitutes an improper collateral attack on an existing order. A general civil restraint order may be made where a party persists in issuing claims or applications that are totally without merit and an extended order is insufficient or inappropriate. The order may extend to proceedings in the High Court, County Court and Family Court, but is ordinarily limited to two years unless the statutory power for an indefinite order is invoked.

The claimant issued related claims against the Chief Land Registrar and Bank of Scotland concerning registration and enforcement of orders made in earlier financial remedy proceedings. The claims alleged identity fraud and denied that the claimant was the person who had petitioned for divorce or was married to the second defendant.

The claims were transferred from the County Court to the Family Division because they related to earlier family proceedings in which an extended civil restraint order had been made. The defendants applied for strike-out. Bank of Scotland, supported by the Chief Land Registrar, also sought a general civil restraint order.

1. Automatic dismissal. The claims concerned matters relating to or touching upon the earlier family proceedings and had been issued without the permission required by the extended civil restraint order. Under paragraph 3.3 of Family Procedure Rules Practice Direction 4B, and the equivalent Civil Procedure Rules Practice Direction 3C provision, they were automatically struck out or dismissed and were to be treated as nullities.
2. Abuse of process. The claims were also struck out under CPR r.3.4(2)(b) and the equivalent Family Procedure Rules provision. They were legally impossible because the claimant’s own divorce petition, decree nisi and decree absolute established the relevant marital status. A person who has petitioned on that basis could not later deny that identity or marriage. The claims were also improper collateral attacks on the earlier order, falling within the principles summarised in JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov (No 6) [2011] 1 WLR 2996.
3. General civil restraint order. The claimant had persisted in issuing claims that were totally without merit, and the existing extended order had proved insufficient. The criteria in paragraph 4.1 of Civil Procedure Rules Practice Direction 3C were therefore satisfied. The order could extend to the Family Court through Family Procedure Rules Practice Direction 4B. It was made in all three sets of proceedings for two years.
4. The court observed that an indefinite order could be made under Senior Courts Act 1981, section 42, but only on an application by the Attorney General. A copy of the judgment was directed to be supplied for consideration of that possibility.

The judgment records that earlier financial remedy proceedings and subsequent applications had generated appeals and County Court proceedings. The present claims were transferred from the County Court to the High Court Family Division for determination. The present decision was a first-instance determination of the strike-out and restraint-order applications.