Commissioner Of Police For The Metropolis v Heathrow Airport Ltd & Ors

A general civil restraint order may be made where a party persists in issuing claims or making applications which are totally without merit, and an extended civil restraint order would not be sufficient or appropriate. The applications need not concern the same proceedings or the same defendant. Repeated totally without merit applications against a range of defendants may demonstrate both persistence and the inadequacy of narrower orders. The court may therefore make a general order requiring permission before any new claim or application is commenced in the High Court or County Court.

The High Court, sitting on its own initiative, considered whether to make a general civil restraint order against Ms Chelfat. She was already subject to an extended civil restraint order relating to proceedings against the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and a limited civil restraint order in separate proceedings. The court considered seven further claims or applications against various defendants which had been adjudged totally without merit. The central issue was whether the requirements in paragraph 4.1 of CPR Practice Direction 3C were satisfied.

1. The court held that the inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process provided the foundation for general civil restraint orders, as explained in Bhamjee v Forsdick & Ors [2003] EWCA Civ 1113; [2004] 1 WLR 88.
2. Under paragraph 4.1 of CPR Practice Direction 3C, a general civil restraint order may be made where a party persists in issuing claims or making applications which are totally without merit and an extended civil restraint order would not be sufficient or appropriate.
3. The court rejected the submission that the applications must be persistently made in the same proceedings. The fact that the applications concerned different defendants and proceedings strengthened, rather than weakened, the case for a general order. Existing extended and limited orders were confined to particular defendants and therefore did not provide a sufficient remedy.
4. The previous opportunity provided by the extended order had not prevented further totally without merit applications. That history justified a general order lasting two years.
5. The court ordered that Ms Chelfat must not commence any claim or bring any application in the High Court or any County Court without permission from the judge or another High Court judge. The existing extended and limited civil restraint orders were discharged as superseded.