Corey-Lee Styles v South Wales Police

An interim injunction requires a recognisable civil claim with a real prospect of success and evidence of a defined future civil wrong requiring restraint. Generalised complaints about historic conduct do not satisfy that threshold. Pleadings must identify the essential facts, including what was done, by whom, when, and why it was unlawful. Civil proceedings cannot be used to attack or undermine decisions properly falling within the family courts’ jurisdiction. Where a litigant repeatedly issues claims or applications declared totally without merit, the court may impose an extended civil restraint order. The order should be confined to the common subject matter of the meritless proceedings and proportionate to the demonstrated risk.

The claimant had brought several High Court claims against South Wales Police, a local authority and a university health board. The police claim had been struck out, while the later claim against the health board and local authority had remained stayed after an order requiring compliant particulars of claim. The claimant made repeated applications for injunctions and other relief. Several had been declared totally without merit.

The claimant’s latest application sought injunctive and other relief concerning alleged police, local authority and medical wrongdoing, including matters overlapping with family proceedings. The court considered that application and, of its own initiative, whether to impose a civil restraint order.

1. Fourth Injunction Application dismissed. The claimant had not identified a recognisable civil claim with a real prospect of success. Her evidence contained no specific incident, date, actor or explanation of the alleged wrong. Broad allegations covering a lengthy period could not enable the court to assess whether a civil wrong had been committed.
2. An injunction is preventive relief. The claimant had to show a defined type of further civil wrong threatened by one or more defendants. The material relied on principally sought to redress perceived historic wrongs and did not establish such a threat.
3. Claims based on generalised allegations were also inconsistent with the requirements of Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pt 16.4(1), and the earlier order requiring concise, particularised facts. Depending on the allegation, inaccurate dissemination might engage defamation or data-protection law, but precise identification of the information, publisher, date and alleged inaccuracy was essential.
4. The civil courts were not the proper forum for complaints concerning matters within the family courts’ province. Civil claims could not be used to attack or undermine family-court decisions, particularly where the issues substantially overlapped.
5. The stayed claim against the health board and local authority was struck out as totally without merit. The claimant had failed to provide compliant particulars or take the steps required to lift the stay, and the defendants were entitled to certainty that the claim would not remain indefinitely outstanding.
6. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, r 23.12, an Extended Civil Restraint Order was appropriate. The repeated totally-without-merit proceedings shared a common theme and target. A General Civil Restraint Order would have been disproportionate because separate landlord-and-tenant proceedings were pending. The order therefore restricted, for three years, claims and applications concerning the subject matter of the identified proceedings against the three defendants and their employees, officers or agents, unless permission was obtained from the supervising judge.

Not an appeal. The judgment determined applications and the future of a stayed High Court claim at first instance.