Selwyn Campbell v Chief Land Registrar

A litigant cannot use consolidation, revocation or transfer applications to re-run a legal argument determined by a final order. The proper route to challenge that order is an application for permission to appeal, subject to the applicable time limits. A court cannot transfer dismissed proceedings to the Court of Appeal. Where a party has persistently issued claims or applications certified as totally without merit, an Extended Civil Restraint Order may be made. The court must select the least restrictive order that is reasonably necessary and proportionate, but an Extended Civil Restraint Order is justified where a Limited Civil Restraint Order would not adequately address persistent abusive litigation.

The claimant brought proceedings concerning a registered mortgage charge, contending that it was void for non-compliance with section 2(3) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. His claim had been struck out and dismissed by HH Judge Hodge QC on 20 January 2022, with a finding that it was totally without merit. The claimant did not appeal.

He later applied to consolidate the proceedings with five related claims and revoke Judge Hodge’s order. He also applied to consolidate the proceedings with a claim against Barclays Bank UK Plc, adjourn the hearing and transfer the applications to the Court of Appeal. The defendant sought an Extended or Limited Civil Restraint Order. The central issues were whether the claimant could re-open the dismissed proceedings and whether the history of repeated meritless litigation justified an Extended Civil Restraint Order.

1. The applications were dismissed. The application to consolidate the claim with five related claims and revoke the order of HH Judge Hodge QC was totally without merit. The January 2022 order was final and disposed of the claims once and for all. The claimant’s only route to challenge it was an application for permission to appeal. There was no basis to vary or set aside the order under CPR 3.17, and the claimant could not re-run the section 2 argument, which had been available and had in fact been advanced at the earlier hearing.
2. Consolidation was inappropriate because the related claims had all been finally dismissed. No sensible basis existed for consolidation merely in relation to enforcement.
3. The application to consolidate the claim with the proceedings against Barclays Bank UK Plc, adjourn the hearing and transfer the applications to the Court of Appeal was also totally without merit. The proceedings against the Bank had been struck out. It was an abuse of process to seek transfer of proceedings that had already been dismissed. The High Court had no procedural jurisdiction to transfer them to the Court of Appeal. The proper route was an application to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal, made within 21 days or accompanied by an application to appeal out of time.
4. The threshold for a Limited Civil Restraint Order was met because the claimant had made at least two applications certified as totally without merit. The threshold for an Extended Civil Restraint Order was also met because he had persistently issued claims and applications of that character.
5. Following the guidance in Sartipy v Tigris Industries Inc [2019] 1 WLR 5892, the court considered proportionality and whether a lesser order would suffice. The claimant’s persistent pursuit of the same section 2 argument, including through proceedings brought shortly after the expiry of an earlier restraint order, justified an Extended Civil Restraint Order. It would operate as a filter requiring permission from a designated judge and would not prevent meritorious applications.
6. An Extended Civil Restraint Order was therefore made for the maximum period of three years and expressly applied to applications in the current proceedings.

Not an appeal. The judgment records that HH Judge Hodge QC dismissed the claimant’s claim on 20 January 2022 and certified it as totally without merit. The claimant did not appeal that order.