Chelfat v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis & Ors

Applications made under a general civil restraint order must comply with the notice and written-response requirements in CPR Practice Direction 3C. Applications for permission are determined without a hearing. Where those requirements are not met, permission may properly be refused. A claim may also be struck out, or summary judgment granted, where the claim is totally without merit and there is no good reason for it to proceed.

The claimant sought reconsideration of several orders made under a general civil restraint order. She also sought to pursue a County Court claim against Primark Stores Limited and Lodge Security Limited arising from an incident in a store in 2014. The claimant alleged false imprisonment, trespass to the person, negligence, occupier’s liability, harassment and employment-related wrongdoing.

The claimant did not attend the hearing and was not represented. The court considered whether her earlier applications should be reconsidered and whether the claim against Primark and Lodge Security should be permitted to proceed.

1. Reconsideration applications. Applications for permission under CPR Practice Direction 3C had to be made in writing and had to comply with the requirements to serve notice, state the nature and grounds of the application, allow the other party at least seven days to respond, and include any written response. Such applications were to be determined without a hearing. The court therefore would not provide a hearing for future applications of that kind.
2. The claimant had failed to comply with the notice requirements in relation to all her applications for permission. The earlier orders dismissing those applications were therefore justified on that ground. The court also considered the merits and the improper combination of multiple applications as further reasons supporting dismissal.
3. Claim against Primark and Lodge Security. The claimant had not demonstrated good reasons why the claim should proceed. The allegations depended substantially on her own account, which the court considered unreliable, and the claim was totally without merit. Her failure to comply with the Practice Direction was an additional reason not to grant permission under the general civil restraint order.
4. The claim was struck out because permission ought not to be given under the civil restraint order. Alternatively, summary judgment was granted to Primark Stores Limited and Lodge Security Limited.

Not an appeal. The judgment concerned reconsideration of earlier orders and the determination of whether a County Court claim should proceed.