VIKI NATASHA MAUGHAN v RICHARD MICHAEL EDMUND WILMOT

A general civil restraint order may be extended where extension is appropriate. The court must consider the whole history, including the conduct that led to the original order and subsequent conduct viewed in that context. There is no presumption that an expiring order should continue. An extension may not exceed two years on any occasion. Where conduct is exceptionally vexatious and outside the norm, costs may properly be awarded on the indemnity basis.

The applicant sought a two-year extension of an existing general civil restraint order under para 4.10 of FPR practice direction 4B. The order had been made because the respondent repeatedly challenged the jurisdictional validity of longstanding ancillary relief orders and disputed service, despite those arguments having been rejected. After his solicitor ceased to act, the respondent resumed extensive communications and unpermitted applications advancing the same contentions.

The court also considered consequential orders and the applicant’s application for costs. The central issues were whether extension of the restraint order was appropriate and whether the respondent’s conduct justified indemnity costs.

1. The application for extension was granted for two years. Under para 4.10 of FPR practice direction 4B, the court may extend a general civil restraint order where it considers extension appropriate, but no extension may exceed two years on any occasion.

2. Applying Ashcroft v Webster [2017] EWHC 887 (Ch), the court held that there is no presumption that an expiring civil restraint order should continue. Appropriateness must be assessed in all the circumstances. That includes both the conduct leading to the original order and later conduct, which must be viewed through the prism of the earlier conduct.

3. The respondent’s repeated allegations that the ancillary relief orders were jurisdictional nullities, and that service had been ineffective, remained wholly meritless. His renewed and extensive correspondence, applications made without the required permission, and continued vexatious conduct demonstrated that extension was appropriate.

4. The applicant’s solicitors were permitted to cease acting and, if necessary, to disclose specified documents and orders to the insurers’ solicitors and the Metropolitan Police, including the order under the Protection from Harassment Act.

5. Costs were awarded on the indemnity basis. The respondent’s conduct was exceptionally vexatious and the case was outside the norm. The claimed sum of £16,301 was reduced to 95 per cent, producing an award of £15,485 inclusive of VAT.