Gregory v Thames Magistrates Court

A final order made in judicial review proceedings may be reconsidered only in exceptional circumstances where reopening it is necessary to avoid real injustice. A party’s procedural failure and misunderstanding of directions will not ordinarily satisfy that test.

An extended civil restraint order requires persistent claims or applications which are totally without merit, meaning bound to fail. The court retains a proportionate discretion. It should consider whether a limited order would suffice before imposing an extended order, having regard to the litigant’s threat level and continuing refusal to accept adverse decisions.

The claimant sought to set aside an order refusing to reopen an earlier refusal of permission to apply for judicial review. The proposed judicial review concerned decisions of the Magistrates’ Court relating to council-tax liability orders and associated enforcement proceedings.

The interested local authority sought an extended civil restraint order, relying on the claimant’s repeated applications and appeals, failures to comply with directions, and attempts to reopen concluded matters. The court considered both the application to set aside the final order and the statutory and procedural framework governing civil restraint orders.

1. Application to set aside. The order refusing to reopen the judicial review proceedings was final. The Administrative Court has an inherent jurisdiction to reconsider a judicial review decision, but only in exceptional circumstances and where reopening is necessary to avoid real injustice. The principles in R (Harkins) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 3609 (Admin) supplied the appropriate test.
2. No exceptional circumstances or real injustice existed. The claimant had failed to comply with clear directions, had not obtained an extension of time by application notice or consent order, and had served only part of the proposed submissions. The court was not misled by the relevant correspondence. The application was therefore refused as totally without merit.
3. Extended civil restraint order. An extended order may be made where a party has persistently issued claims or made applications which are totally without merit. At least three such applications are required: Ludlam (a bankrupt) [2009] EWHC 2067. “Totally without merit” means bound to fail: R (Grace) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 1091; R (Kumar) v Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs [2006] EWCA Civ 990.
4. The claimant had made at least three applications which were bound to fail, including the applications to set aside the Magistrates’ Court orders and the successive applications to reopen the judicial review proceedings. Applications to a Magistrates’ Court were not outside the civil restraint jurisdiction and, in any event, formed important context.
5. The discretion to impose an order had to be exercised proportionately. The court adopted a graduated approach, considering first whether a limited order would suffice and then the threat level of further unmeritorious applications. The claimant’s continuing attempts to reopen concluded issues, despite repeated warnings, demonstrated an extremely high threat level. An extended order was therefore justified for two years, restraining claims or applications in the High Court and County Court and requiring permission from Supperstone J or another authorised Administrative Court judge.
6. The local authority was awarded its costs of £17,500.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Walker J refused permission to apply for judicial review on 2 November 2018 and certified the claim totally without merit. Sir Ross Cranston refused the claimant’s application to set aside that order on 13 April 2019. The present court refused the further application to set aside Sir Ross Cranston’s order and imposed an extended civil restraint order.