Ingeus UK Ltd v Wardle

A general civil restraint order may be made where a litigant persists in issuing claims or applications that are totally without merit, and an extended order would be insufficient or inappropriate. The court must consider whether continuation is appropriate, protecting litigants and finite court resources while having full regard to the restrained party’s access to litigation. Where the existing order’s jurisdictional basis is doubtful, the court may make a fresh order if the procedural conditions are satisfied.

Ingeus UK Ltd applied for a further two-year restriction on Andrew Wardle’s ability to issue claims or applications without permission. Earlier courts had struck out his claims as totally without merit and imposed civil restraint orders. The application relied on numerous subsequent letters, allegations and applications directed at Ingeus, public officials, judges and others.

Wardle did not attend or make written submissions, but the court was satisfied that he had been properly served. The central issues were whether the conditions for a general civil restraint order were met, whether the 2019 order was jurisdictionally valid, and whether the appropriate course was to extend that order or make a fresh one.

1. Fresh order made. The court made a fresh general civil restraint order for two years. It concluded that Wardle had persisted in issuing claims and applications that were totally without merit and that, but for the earlier orders, he would have continued to do so. A further restraint was necessary to protect litigants from vexatious proceedings and the finite resources of the court from vexatious waste.
2. Applicable test. Paragraph 4.1 of Practice Direction 3C permits a general civil restraint order where the party persists in issuing claims or applications that are totally without merit, and an extended order would not be sufficient or appropriate. Under paragraph 4.10, an extension depends on whether the court considers it appropriate. That question must be read in light of the original criteria and must have full regard to the impact on the restrained party. The formulation approved in Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset Constabulary v Gray [2019] EWCA Civ 1675 was applied.
3. Procedural character and scope. The general civil restraint order gives procedural effect to the court’s inherent jurisdiction to control vexatious litigation, recognised in Bhamjee v Forsdick [2003] EWCA Civ 1113. It is apt to address a scattergun approach involving different grievances, as explained in R (Kumar) v Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs [2006] EWCA Civ 990.
4. Jurisdictional doubt. The court considered it doubtful that a Designated Civil Judge authorised under section 9 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 to act as a High Court judge had jurisdiction to make a freestanding general civil restraint order in the High Court. It was unnecessary to decide the point because the court could make a fresh order on the present application.

Not an appeal. The judgment records earlier orders and unsuccessful appeal attempts in the underlying litigation, but the present decision was a first-instance determination of Ingeus UK Ltd’s application.