Michelle Andrea Hargreaves (styling herself as The Lord Jesus Christ) v The District Probate Court, Lessors, Reversioners and/or Tenants in Possession or Persons Respectively

A claim must disclose a legally recognisable cause of action and, where Part 8 is used, the claim form must identify the question or remedy sought and the legal basis for it. A claim alleging no error in the registration of a birth, and seeking alteration of the registered name solely because the claimant was later baptised and changed her name, discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing a claim. Such a claim may be struck out under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rules 3.3(4) and 3.4(2). A single totally-without-merit application does not, without more, justify a civil restraint order.

The claimant brought a Part 8 claim against defendants described as the District Probate Court and persons connected with property possession. She relied on the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 and the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, apparently seeking alteration of the name recorded on her birth certificate following her baptism and subsequent change of name.

The court had previously struck out the claim form and claim under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rules 3.3(4) and 3.4(2), as disclosing no reasonable grounds and had recorded that the claim was totally without merit. The claimant applied to set that order aside.

1. The application to vary or set aside the previous order was refused. The claim remained struck out, and the application was recorded as totally without merit.

2. Under Part 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 8.2, a claim form must identify the question for determination or the remedy sought, together with the legal basis for the claim to that remedy. The present claim made it difficult to identify either the question or the relief sought.

3. The claim disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing proceedings. The claimant had been registered at birth in the name given by her father, and nothing in the claim suggested that the registration was erroneous. Her later baptism and change of name did not disclose a legal cause of action requiring alteration of the birth registration. The Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 was irrelevant to the claim.

4. Although the application was totally without merit, the court considered that there was no present basis for making a civil restraint order. Only one application had been made. The claimant was warned that further claims or applications of a similar nature might justify such an order.