Waghorn (Per Pro CPR Ablations PLC) v Director of Public Prosecutions & Ors

A general civil restraint order may be extended where the litigant has persisted in issuing claims or making applications which are totally without merit, and the circumstances make an extended civil restraint order insufficient or inappropriate. The court may assess the merits of an underlying proposed claim when deciding whether an application for permission under a general civil restraint order is itself totally without merit. A claim issued in breach of such an order is automatically struck out and may constitute contempt of court. The court may extend the order for up to two years on each occasion.

The claimant had been made subject to a general civil restraint order by Andrews J in 2018 after two applications for judicial review were refused and certified as totally without merit. He subsequently issued further proceedings and sought permission to pursue claims against Lloyds Banking Group, Verily Life Sciences LLC and HM Revenue and Customs. The designated civil judge refused permission, and the claimant sought to appeal. The court also considered the proposed patent-related claim in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court and whether the general civil restraint order should be extended.

The central issues were whether the claimant had persisted in making claims or applications which were totally without merit, and whether an extended civil restraint order would be insufficient or inappropriate.

1. The general civil restraint order was extended for a further two years. The claim form in Waghorn v Verily Life Sciences LLC, claim IL-2018-000164, was struck out.

2. Under paragraph 4.10 of CPR 3C Practice Direction, the court may extend a general civil restraint order where it considers extension appropriate, but not for more than two years at a time. In this case that discretion was informed by two questions: whether the claimant had persisted in making claims or applications which were totally without merit, and whether the circumstances were such that an extended civil restraint order would not be sufficient or appropriate.

3. An application for permission to bring or renew a claim under a general civil restraint order may itself be totally without merit where the underlying claim is totally without merit. The absence of a decision on the merits of an earlier claim does not prevent the permission application from being abusive where the claim had been automatically struck out under the order.

4. The proposed claims were totally without merit. The proposed judicial review concerning refusal of a business bank account had no sensible public-law basis. The proposed claims against HMRC did not engage with the reasons in the decision notices. The patent claim was defective because no patent had yet been granted, the proposed grounds fell outside the statutory grounds for challenge, the reliance on section 4A(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1977 was misconceived, and there were additional defects concerning service and pleading.

5. An extended civil restraint order was insufficient or inappropriate because the claimant’s recurring themes did not identify the precise types of claim or potential defendants, and his practice of joining apparently random interested parties made the future litigation difficult to predict. His persistence gave the court no confidence that the conduct had abated.

The judgment records that Andrews J made the original general civil restraint order on 18 October 2018 and later refused permission to appeal against the refusal of permission to bring further proceedings. The present court extended the order and struck out the patent-related claim.