Kinsley Ezeugo v Ministry of Justice

An interim application must be brought in the court and procedural forum with responsibility for the relevant proceedings. A judge sitting in the King’s Bench Division Interim Applications Court should not interfere with the administration, expedition, case management or appeal process of proceedings assigned to the Administrative or Family Court.

An application is misconceived where the relief sought presupposes a hearing or procedural step that does not exist. Repeated applications for substantially the same relief, without a material change of circumstances, may constitute an abuse of process. Where applications are plainly misconceived, vexatious and totally without merit, they may be dismissed without costs and may justify consideration of a civil restraint order.

The claimant applied in an existing King’s Bench Division claim for four forms of relief: an adjournment of an alleged damages hearing, directions concerning proposed claims against the Criminal Cases Review Commission, expedition of proceedings against the Lord Chancellor, and transfer or directions concerning a Family Court appeal.

The court reviewed the procedural history and concluded that the alleged damages hearing did not exist, that the applications concerning the Administrative Court were wrongly directed, and that the Family Court appeal had already been dealt with in the proper forum. The central issues were whether the applications were procedurally competent and whether they were totally without merit.

1. Disposition. All four applications were dismissed as misconceived and totally without merit. There was no order as to costs.
2. Adjournment. There was no hearing listed or due to be listed for assessment of damages or other relief. No judgment on liability had been identified. If the claim remained live, any case-management application should be made to the King’s Bench Master responsible for the claim, not urgently and without notice in the Interim Applications Court.
3. Administrative Court applications. Any concern about issuing judicial review claims against the Criminal Cases Review Commission was a matter for the Administrative Court Office and, where appropriate, the judge in charge of that court. Similarly, expedition of proceedings in the Administrative Court was a matter for that court. A second expedition application, made without any material change after an earlier reasoned refusal, was an abuse of process.
4. Family Court appeal. An appeal from a District Judge sitting in the Family Court lay through the Family Court appellate route. The District Judge’s indication of the appropriate venue was administrative and unobjectionable. The appeal had already been considered by Poole J, who refused permission. There was no jurisdictional or procedural basis for reconsideration in the King’s Bench Division or for directions concerning the constitution of the appellate court.
5. Civil restraint order. Under CPR rule 23.12, the court had to record the totally without merit determinations and consider whether a civil restraint order was appropriate. The repeated, cross-jurisdictional, voluminous and unfocused nature of the claimant’s applications provided a case to answer for a general civil restraint order. The question was referred for consideration on the papers by the judge in charge of the King’s Bench Civil List, with directions for the claimant to file written submissions.