Eurohome UK Mortgages 2007-1 Plc & Ors v Intertrust Management Limited & Ors

A general civil restraint order requires persistent issuing of claims or applications that are totally without merit. The order must also be necessary to protect litigants from vexatious proceedings, the court’s finite resources from vexatious waste, or both. The court must have regard to the restrained party’s position and should select the least intrusive order that achieves the protective purpose. An extended order may be insufficient where similar totally without merit proceedings have continued despite earlier restraint orders. On the facts, the persistence and wider impact of the proceedings justified a general order.

The claimants in two related Commercial Court proceedings applied for a general, alternatively extended, civil restraint order against Saret Holdings Corp. The application followed numerous claims and applications involving Saret and related entities, several of which had been struck out or certified as totally without merit in proceedings across the High Court.

The court had to determine whether the threshold of persistent totally without merit litigation was met and, if so, whether the circumstances made a general civil restraint order necessary and proportionate.

1. Application granted. A general civil restraint order was made against Saret Holdings Corp. The application judge was His Honour Judge Mark Pelling QC, with Mr Justice Foxton as alternate.
2. Under Practice Direction 3C, paragraph 4.1, a general civil restraint order requires proof that the respondent has persisted in issuing claims or making applications that are totally without merit, in circumstances where an extended order would not be sufficient or appropriate.
3. The governing test, approved by the Court of Appeal in Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset v Gray [2019] EWCA Civ 1675, asks whether the order is necessary to protect litigants from vexatious proceedings and/or to protect the finite resources of the court from vexatious waste. The court must have full regard to the order’s impact on the restrained party.
4. The threshold requirement and the discretionary necessity requirement are distinct. The court found persistence well beyond the minimum required level, identifying at least 12 cases involving Saret in which claims or applications had been struck out or dismissed as totally without merit.
5. The least intrusive order that achieves the protective purpose should ordinarily be selected. An extended order was inadequate here because similar vexatious and totally without merit proceedings had continued after earlier extended orders. The scale of the litigation burden and the need to protect affected litigants and court resources made a general order necessary and proportionate.