Ghassemian v Chatsworth Court Freehold Company Ltd

An extended civil restraint order may be extended after its expiry. The court retains jurisdiction to do so, although the delay is a highly material factor when deciding whether an extension is appropriate. The court must not apply a presumption of continuance or extend the order automatically. Relevant considerations include the background, the applicant’s persistence before the original order, and conduct after it was made. The maximum extension of two years runs from expiry of the existing order. A restraint order limits ill-founded applications by requiring permission; it does not prevent well-founded matters being brought before the court.

The court considered whether to extend extended civil restraint orders made against Mr Shahrooz Ghassemian and Mrs Hamila Sartipy. The orders arose from prolonged attempts to relitigate disputes concerning 56 Chatsworth Court, including proceedings brought in different names and courts. Mr Ghassemian argued that the order against him had expired and could only be replaced by a fresh order. The defendants sought extensions of both orders. The central issues were whether an expired order could be extended and whether the evidence justified continuing the restraints.

1. Jurisdiction after expiry. The court accepted that CPR Practice Direction 3C, paragraph 3.10 did not fetter the jurisdiction to extend a civil restraint order after the order had expired. Expiry remained a highly material factor in deciding whether an extension was appropriate.
2. Applicable approach. The test was whether it would be appropriate to extend the order. There was no presumption of continuance and an order should not be extended automatically. Relevant factors included the background, the degree of persistence before the original order, and the person’s conduct after it was made, following the principles summarised from Society of Lloyd's v Noel [2015] EWHC 734 (QB).
3. Duration. If an order was extended after expiry, the two-year limit in paragraph 3.10 ran from the expiry of the existing order. Otherwise the limit could be circumvented.
4. Application to Mr Ghassemian. His continued attempts to relitigate ownership and possession issues, including reliance on a document bearing an unauthorised purported remittal from the Court of Appeal, demonstrated the appropriateness of extending his order. The order did not prevent well-founded applications; it required permission for ill-founded applications.
5. Application to Mrs Sartipy. Although there was little evidence of independent conduct by Mrs Sartipy, the evidence showed that Mr Ghassemian continued to use her name as a vehicle for pursuing the same dispute and causing confusion. That pattern justified extending her order.
6. Both orders were extended for two years from the expiry of Mr Ghassemian’s order, with amended terms identifying relevant action numbers and affected parties.

Not stated in the judgment.