Panton & Anor v Vale of White Horse District Council & Anor

A claim may be an abuse of process where it seeks indirectly to undermine earlier court decisions, even if it is framed as a new claim for damages and does not formally plead estoppel. The court may examine the substance and effect of the new claim, including whether success would implicitly contradict earlier decisions or reverse costs orders.

An extended civil restraint order requires at least three claims or applications which are totally without merit and persistence assessed by the party’s overall conduct. Separate applications made during, or to appeal within, earlier proceedings may be counted separately. The order remains discretionary and must be proportionate, having regard particularly to the risk of continued unmeritorious litigation.

The claimants brought proceedings against a district council and its proper officer concerning the ownership of a village hall. They alleged that the second defendant had acted ultra vires, committed misfeasance in public office and breached trust by opposing earlier proceedings concerning the hall.

Earlier judicial review proceedings and Chancery Division proceedings had failed, with permission to appeal refused. The present claim sought damages substantially representing costs incurred in those proceedings. The defendants applied to strike out the claim under CPR rule 3.4(2), alternatively for summary judgment, and sought extended civil restraint orders under CPR rule 3.11 and Practice Direction 3C. The issues were whether the claim was abusive or disclosed reasonable grounds, and whether the conditions for restraint orders were satisfied.

1. Strike-out. The claim was struck out under CPR rule 3.4(2)(b) as an abuse of process. Although the defendants did not rely on formal issue estoppel, the court could invoke its inherent jurisdiction to prevent previously determined issues being repeatedly litigated.
2. The current claim rested on the same underlying complaint as the earlier proceedings. Its allegations concerning the second defendant’s conduct related to evidence and submissions considered in those proceedings. There was no material fresh evidence. A judgment for the claimants would implicitly contradict the earlier decisions and the damages claimed, being principally earlier costs, would in substance reverse the previous costs orders.
3. The appropriate method of challenging the earlier decisions was appeal. Permission to appeal had been refused. The court noted that the position might have differed if genuinely fresh evidence of misfeasance had been advanced.
4. The claim would also have been struck out under CPR rule 3.4(2)(a). A claim for misfeasance in public office might in principle be available, but it requires bad faith. A disagreement about the legal effect of complicated transactions, without more, did not establish bad faith. The claim was certified as totally without merit. The summary judgment application did not require separate determination.
5. Extended civil restraint order. Under Practice Direction 3C, at least three claims or applications which were totally without merit are required. “Totally without merit” means bound to fail because there is no rational basis on which the claim or application could succeed. Claims, applications made during proceedings, and applications to appeal may be counted separately.
6. Persistence requires an evaluation of the party’s overall conduct. The claimants had repeatedly pursued the same issue despite adverse decisions. An extended order was proportionate against the first claimant, who presented a high risk of further unmeritorious litigation, and was made for two years. No order was made against the second claimant because he was not a real party to the judicial review proceedings and the evidence did not show a comparable risk of continuing litigation on his own initiative.

This was a first-instance decision, but the judgment recorded the relevant earlier proceedings:

• High Court, Administrative Court: permission to apply for judicial review was refused, including on renewal. Permission to appeal was subsequently refused.
• High Court, Chancery Division: the earlier claim was struck out under CPR rule 3.4(2)(a); permission to appeal was refused.
• Present judgment: the new claim was struck out as an abuse of process and an extended civil restraint order was made against Mr Panton.