Robert Hurst v Evelyn Green & Ors.

An extended civil restraint order may be extended where the court considers that appropriate, but the court must not simply repeat the test for imposing the original order. It must consider all the circumstances, including the conduct which led to the order and subsequent applications. Earlier conduct may provide the context for assessing the risk of further vexatious litigation. Repeated applications certified as totally without merit, coupled with a continuing refusal to accept adverse decisions, may justify a further two-year extension. A new allegation cannot be used to revive previously rejected arguments or reopen final decisions where doing so would constitute an abuse of process.

Mr Hurst renewed his application for permission to seek multiple forms of relief, including review of earlier decisions, annulment of his bankruptcy, rescission of a summary judgment order and repayment of money paid under that order. The application relied on an alleged payment by solicitors to a company and sought to connect that payment with long-standing allegations of undue influence, breach of trust and professional impropriety.

The court had previously refused substantially similar applications and certified them as totally without merit. Mr Hurst then sought review of the latest refusal and sent further witness statements. The central issues were whether permission should be granted, whether the proposed applications would constitute an abuse of process, and whether the existing extended civil restraint order should be extended.

1. Permission refused. The alleged payment, even assuming it constituted a breach of trust, had no relevance to the grounds on which summary judgment had been granted. It occurred years after the events relied on in support of the undue influence and fiduciary-duty arguments and could not realistically have altered the summary judgment decision. The attempt to use the payment to revive those arguments and undo the sequence of earlier decisions would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.
2. The need for finality in litigation was an additional reason for refusing permission. Mr Hurst had had numerous earlier opportunities to raise the point. His latest application was another attempt to resurrect arguments that had already been considered and rejected.
3. Extension of the ECRO. The court held that it had jurisdiction to extend an extended civil restraint order of its own motion where it considered that appropriate, subject to the maximum two-year period under CPR PD 3C, para 3.10. The question was not whether the court would now impose a fresh order. All the circumstances had to be considered. The conduct leading to the original order remained relevant as context for assessing the likelihood and motivation of further vexatious conduct.
4. Applying the approach in Ashcroft v Webster [2017] EWHC 887 (Ch), the court found that Mr Hurst had shown no sign of moving on, had persisted in an irrational refusal to accept adverse decisions and had made three further applications certified as totally without merit. It was appropriate to extend the ECRO for two years, expiring on 15 November 2024.
5. The further applications were certified as totally without merit. Any later application for permission which was totally without merit would be finally dismissed, without a right of appeal unless permission to appeal was granted by the judge refusing permission.