Central Bridging Loans Ltd v Anwer

A civil restraint order may be imposed where a party has persistently issued claims or applications that are totally without merit. An application is totally without merit where it is bound to fail because there is no rational basis on which it could succeed. The conduct need not be abusive or dishonest. Persistence is not determined by numbers alone. The court must assess the party’s overall conduct, including repeated attempts to relitigate decided matters. The court may consider applications made before the hearing, even if they were not previously certified as totally without merit, provided it has sufficient information and does not substitute its own view for that of the judge who decided the earlier matter. Related proceedings may be considered when deciding whether an extended civil restraint order is justified.

Central Bridging Loans Ltd applied for an extended civil restraint order against Mr Juraid Mohammed Anwer under the civil restraint provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules. The application arose from insolvency proceedings concerning statutory demands for a shortfall allegedly due under bridging loans, together with related County Court proceedings concerning the same underlying dispute.

Before the application was heard, Mr Anwer had made several applications, including applications for permission to appeal, committal proceedings, specific disclosure, and repeated attempts to set aside the statutory demands. Some had been certified as totally without merit. The issue was whether the applications, taken together, demonstrated the persistence required for an extended civil restraint order.

1. Application granted. The court made an extended civil restraint order relating specifically to applications in the insolvency proceedings and the related County Court proceedings.
2. Under CPR rule 3.11 and Practice Direction 3C, an extended civil restraint order may be made where a party has persistently issued claims or made applications that are totally without merit. An application is totally without merit where it is bound to fail because there is no rational basis on which it could succeed. It need not be abusive, dishonest, or supported by false evidence, although those features may strengthen the case for an order. The court applied the guidance in Ghassemian Hamila Sartipy v Tigris Industries Inc [2019] EWCA Civ 225.
3. Persistence requires at least three totally without merit claims or applications, but the test is not merely numerical. The court must evaluate the party’s overall conduct. Repeated attempts to relitigate issues already decided may demonstrate persistence more readily than unrelated applications made over a long period. The threshold identified in CFC 26 Ltd v Brown Shipley & Co Ltd [2017] EWHC 1594 (Ch) was applied as explained in Tigris.
4. The court could consider applications that had not been certified as totally without merit, provided it had sufficient material to understand them. It should not substitute its own view for that of the judge who heard the earlier application. The relevant consideration includes the threat of continued unmeritorious litigation and the risk of further demands on opponents and court resources, as explained in Courtman (Trustee in Bankruptcy) v Ludlam [2009] EWHC 2067 (Ch).
5. The court was entitled to consider conduct occurring after the ECRO application was issued but before its hearing, provided the respondent had an opportunity to address it. It was also entitled to consider applications made in related proceedings, because the wording of Practice Direction 3C extended the potential order to claims or applications relating to or touching upon the proceedings in which the order was made.
6. Seven applications made within a relatively short period demonstrated persistence. They included repeated attempts to reopen the statutory-demand issue and repeated committal applications despite earlier judicial observations and findings that such applications were totally without merit. An ECRO was therefore justified.