Reelworld Europe Ltd v Uddin

An extended civil restraint order may be made where a party has persistently issued claims or applications that are totally without merit. The threshold is met where the claims are bound to fail and have been made on at least three occasions, including where earlier courts have certified them as totally without merit.

Satisfying the threshold does not make an order automatic. The court must exercise its judgment and discretion, assess the objective risk of further abuse, consider less intrusive orders, and ensure that the order is necessary and proportionate. An extended order regulates access to the court; it does not remove the right of access.

The applicant sought an extended civil restraint order against the respondent under CPR 3.11 and Civil Procedure Rules Practice Direction 3C. The application followed six claims and related applications concerning alleged intellectual property rights. Several claims had been struck out or dismissed, and four claims or applications had been certified as totally without merit.

The respondent had been notified of the hearing but did not attend or communicate any difficulty. The central issues were whether the statutory and procedural trigger for an extended civil restraint order was satisfied, whether such an order was justified and proportionate, and what its proper scope and duration should be.

1. Disposition. The application was granted. The respondent was restrained, for two years until 7 March 2023, from issuing claims or making applications in the High Court or any county court concerning, involving, relating to, touching upon or leading to the proceedings in claim G90MA195 without prior permission. Costs were assessed at £6,702.45.
2. Proceeding in absence. The respondent had been properly notified and had repeatedly failed to attend hearings. Having regard to the overriding objective, fairness and proportionality, it was appropriate to proceed under CPR 23.11.
3. Trigger. The jurisdiction under CPR 3C paragraph 3.1 is engaged where a party has persistently issued claims or made applications that are totally without merit. Totally without merit means bound to fail, and persistently means on three or more occasions. Previous certifications are important evidence, although the court may also assess whether uncertified claims were in fact totally without merit.
4. Discretion and proportionality. Satisfaction of the trigger does not require an order. The court must assess the objective risk of further abuse, including the party’s conduct, repeated attempts to relitigate the same subject matter, previous warnings and the absence of any satisfactory assurance. Here the repeated claims, their incoherence, the four certifications and the respondent’s stated resolve demonstrated a high threat level. The evidential bar was crossed and an order was necessary and proportionate.
5. Scope. A limited civil restraint order would have been ineffective because the problem extended across multiple claims. A general civil restraint order was not sought. The extended order was the proportionate middle course. It restricted the procedure for access to court, rather than the right of access itself, and required prior notice to proposed parties under Practice Direction 3C paragraphs 3.2(1) and 3.4.