Lalmalek al Bulushi v Paratus AMC Limited

A registered legal charge granted by deed is not an agreement to confer an interest in land for the purposes of section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. The statutory signature requirement therefore does not invalidate such a mortgage.

An extended civil restraint order is appropriate where a claimant persistently attempts to relitigate an issue already decided and further proceedings would be vexatious, hopeless and wasteful of court resources. The relevant question is whether the order is necessary to protect litigants and the finite resources of the court.

The defendant applied to extend an extended civil restraint order made by Mann J on 20 November 2019. The order had been made because the claimant persistently issued claims and applications that were totally without merit.

The underlying dispute concerned a mortgage over the property in which the claimant had lived. The claimant repeatedly argued that the mortgage was void because it was not signed by both parties as required by section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. That argument had been rejected, and subsequent attempts to revive it had also been refused.

The issue was whether a further extension of the restraint order was necessary to prevent further vexatious proceedings and waste of court resources.

1. Extension granted. The existing extended civil restraint order was extended for two years, up to and including 20 October 2023.
2. The claimant’s repeated attempts to litigate the validity of the mortgage demonstrated persistent relitigation of an issue already decided. The same argument had been raised in the present proceedings, in further proceedings, in applications for permission to appeal, and in later applications made under the restraint order.
3. The argument based on section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 was legally untenable. Section 2 concerns an agreement for the transfer of an interest in land. The defendant relied on a registered legal charge, rather than an agreement to confer a legal charge. The mortgage had been validly granted by deed and registered at the Land Registry, so compliance with section 2 was unnecessary.
4. The relevant question in deciding whether to extend an extended civil restraint order was whether extension was necessary to protect litigants from vexatious proceedings and to protect the finite resources of the court from waste. In the circumstances, it was inevitable that, without extension, the claimant was likely to issue another hopeless claim seeking to relitigate the same point.

The judgment describes earlier procedural steps in the same litigation:

• High Court: Mann J made the extended civil restraint order on 20 November 2019.
• Court of Appeal: Newey LJ refused permission to appeal that order on 8 July 2020 as totally without merit. A later attempt to appeal an order of Zacaroli J was rejected on 11 October 2022, with Arnold LJ describing it as a blatant attempt to relitigate the matter.
• High Court: Zacaroli J rejected a later application under the restraint order as totally without merit.
• High Court: Mr Justice Fancourt extended the order to 20 October 2023.