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

A civil restraint order may be made only against a person who is shown to be the real party behind the litigation. Where the evidence suggests that the named litigant is a pseudonym or non-existent person, the court should not make an order against that individual. The appropriate course is to establish whether the real individual is responsible for the proceedings and, if so, to enforce any existing restraint order against that person.

The court considered an application for a general or extended civil restraint order against Ms Annabel Watson in proceedings brought by mortgage-related claimants against Intertrust entities and others. The application relied on several claims or applications said to have been signed or advanced by Ms Watson, including proceedings previously struck out as totally without merit.

The evidence suggested that the named Ms Watson was a pseudonym for Mr Hussain, while a real person of that name was unconnected with the litigation. The central issue was whether the court could properly treat the named individual as the real party behind the litigation for the purposes of making a civil restraint order.

1. The application for a general or extended civil restraint order against Ms Watson was refused. The court was not satisfied, on the available evidence, that she was a real party to the litigation.

2. Applying the reasoning identified in Sartipy v Tigris Industries Incorporated, an individual cannot be made subject to a civil restraint order unless the court is satisfied that the individual is the real party behind the litigation.

3. The evidence indicated that Ms Watson was a pseudonym for Mr Hussain. A genuine person named Annabel Rose Watson appeared to exist, but she was not connected with the proceedings. The court therefore could not safely impose an order on Ms Watson as the named individual.

4. If Mr Hussain had breached an existing general civil restraint order by causing proceedings to be issued or advanced under the name of a non-existent person, the proper course would be to seek enforcement against Mr Hussain. There was no useful purpose in making an order against a non-existent individual.

5. The application was accordingly declined, leaving any question of Mr Hussain’s responsibility to be addressed through appropriate enforcement proceedings.