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

A general civil restraint order may be made where the applicant establishes persistent claims or applications certified as totally without merit, and an extended order would not adequately protect litigants or court resources. The court may assess persistence by reference to multiple such orders made over a short period and involving different proceedings or parties. A general order is justified where the circumstances indicate a continuing risk that further unmeritorious proceedings will be brought.

The court considered an application for a general civil restraint order against Corelli Capital AG. The application arose from repeated claims and applications brought by Corelli in several proceedings, including applications dismissed or claims struck out as totally without merit. The court also referred to two further dismissals or strikeouts in the current proceedings.

The central issues were whether the required persistence had been demonstrated and whether an extended civil restraint order would be sufficient, or whether a general order was necessary to protect litigants and the finite resources of the court.

1. Application granted. A general civil restraint order was made against Corelli Capital AG. The application judge was His Honour Judge Mark Pelling QC, with Mr Justice Foxton as alternate.
2. The applicable jurisdictional test was persistence. That requirement was satisfied by the number and frequency of orders made against Corelli, including four totally without merit orders within a period of rather less than a month.
3. The relevant orders included the dismissal of Corelli’s summary judgment application and the striking out of its claim in proceedings numbered CL-2021-611, both certified as totally without merit; the dismissal of an adjournment application and striking out of a claim in Chancery proceedings numbered 2022-179; the striking out of the Great Hall claim; and two further dismissals or strikeouts in the current proceedings.
4. The court then considered whether an extended civil restraint order would adequately protect litigants and court resources. Although no extended civil restraint order had previously been made against Corelli, the repeated claims and applications against different parties over a short period demonstrated that a general order was necessary.
5. Without a general order, Corelli was likely to be used as a vehicle for bringing further claims of an equally unmeritorious nature. The order was therefore necessary both to protect litigants and to preserve the finite resources of the court.