Sheikh v Page & Anor

A general civil restraint order may be extended where the court considers extension appropriate. The extension test differs from the threshold for making the original order. The court should examine conduct during the period since the order was made or last extended, because the two-year limit is an important safeguard. Any restraint must remain proportionate to the legitimate aims of protecting opposing parties and court resources, while preserving access to the courts through a permission filter.

The defendants applied for a further two-year extension of a general civil restraint order imposed against Anal Sheikh and previously extended at regular intervals. The order arose from persistent claims and applications found to be totally without merit in the context of earlier property-related litigation. The court considered evidence of Sheikh’s conduct during the latest period, including repeated communications, proposed proceedings and attempts to revive concluded matters. The central issue was whether extension of the existing order was appropriate under CPR PD 3C.

1. Extension granted. The general civil restraint order was extended for a further two years, the maximum period permitted on one occasion by CPR PD 3C 4.10.
2. The court adopted the general observations in The Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary v Gray [2016] EWHC 2998 (QB). The threshold for making an original general civil restraint order under PD 3C 4.1 is distinct from the question whether an existing order should be extended. For an extension, the question is whether the court considers it appropriate.
3. An extension application would normally require evidence addressing the period since the order was made or most recently extended. The court must remain alert to the fundamental right of access to a court. A restraint is justified only to the extent necessary to pursue legitimate aims, including protecting other parties and court resources from repeated unfounded litigation. A general order is a permission filter, not an absolute bar on proceedings.
4. The recent conduct supplied compelling evidence that extension was appropriate. It showed continuing attempts to issue or promote unmeritorious claims, revive concluded litigation, accuse judges and lawyers of grave wrongdoing without discernible evidential basis, and intervene in unrelated proceedings. Failure to extend the order would lead to further uncontrolled and unmeritorious claims.
5. The additional applications made at the hearing were not properly formulated or compliant with the existing order. Any committal application required careful formulation, compelling evidence and a proper opportunity for the alleged contemnors to respond. The recusal application also failed: applying Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357, no fair-minded and informed observer could conclude that there was a real possibility of bias.