Taylor v Robinson & Ors

The court has an inherent power to strike out committal proceedings as an abuse of process, even where neither the Civil Procedure Rules nor a practice direction expressly confers that power. The Henderson v Henderson principle applies to successive committal applications. The court must make a broad merits-based assessment of whether the allegations could and should have been brought earlier and whether the later application amounts to unjust harassment. Successive applications for distinct breaches may be permissible, but they remain subject to that control. An application may be struck out before trial where the abuse is apparent, including where allegations should have been included in an earlier committal application.

The claimant and the third defendant applied to strike out a committal application issued by the first defendant. The application alleged breaches of several orders requiring disclosure of assets, bank accounts, statements and related information, and breaches of freezing orders.

It was the third committal application arising from the parties’ dispute. The earlier application had been dismissed on procedural grounds, principally because the relevant orders had been served after the compliance dates. The present application concerned alleged breaches of a July 2019 order which pre-dated the earlier application and could have been included in it. The central issues were whether the court had power to strike out a committal application under the current rules, whether the allegations were adequately particularised, and whether the fresh application was an abuse of process under the Henderson v Henderson principle.

1. Power to strike out. The court possesses an inherent power to strike out a committal application which is an abuse of process. That power derives from the court’s control of its own proceedings and is not removed by the absence of an express provision in the current CPR or a practice direction. The power extends to abuse arising under the Henderson v Henderson principle.
2. Particularisation. The application was to be assessed by reading the Particulars, Support Document and supporting affidavit together. With one exception, the allegations against the defendants were sufficiently clear and supported by prima facie material to proceed. The allegation that the third defendant had failed to provide receipts was struck out because the order required production only of receipts which she had, and the application identified neither the receipts allegedly held nor prima facie grounds for concluding that she possessed them.
3. Successive applications. Villiers v Villiers and Re W establish that successive committal applications may be permissible for separate breaches of the same or different orders. That does not exclude the operation of abuse-of-process principles. The court must consider whether the applications manipulate the process, are disproportionate, or unjustly harass the respondent.
4. Application of the Henderson principle. The court applied the broad merits-based assessment in Johnson v Gore Wood. The alleged breaches of the July 2019 order were known before the earlier application, were deliberately omitted, and were referred to in that earlier application. The fresh application was issued shortly after dismissal of the earlier one and exposed private individuals to a third threat of imprisonment for conduct occurring in August 2019. The fact that the allegations were potentially serious and that the earlier application had failed on procedural rather than substantive grounds did not outweigh the oppressive effect and avoidable duplication.
5. Disposition. The fresh committal application was an abuse of process and was struck out. The defendants’ application succeeded.

First-instance decision. The judgment records earlier procedural and committal applications within the same dispute but gives no appellate decision under review.