Ezeugo v Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health Trust

A court must obey an existing order unless and until it is set aside or varied. The fact that a party has appealed does not, without more, suspend the order’s effect. Where proceedings have been stayed, another judge has no power to take further steps in the claim unless the stay is lifted. A claimant cannot bypass a stay by reframing an application as a different procedural step. Applications without notice are permitted only in narrowly defined circumstances, including exceptional urgency. Even where urgency is alleged, an order should not be made without notice where the relief requires a response from the opposing party.

The claimant sought urgent mandatory and prohibitory injunctions against a mental health trust. The application was made without notice and was issued in an existing claim. That claim had previously been stayed by Master Gidden because the pleaded case disclosed no reasonably coherent or intelligible grounds and appeared potentially abusive. The claimant had been given an opportunity to apply to lift the stay by filing compliant particulars of claim.

The claimant argued that the stay should be ignored because he intended to appeal it, that it had been improperly made, and that the merits and urgency of the injunctions justified immediate relief. The central issues were whether the court could act in a stayed claim and whether the application could properly be determined without notice.

1. The application was dismissed. Master Gidden’s order had stayed the claim and had not been set aside or varied. The court therefore had no power to make the orders sought, irrespective of their merits.
2. A court order must be obeyed unless and until it is set aside or varied. The existence of an intended or pending appeal does not, by itself, deprive the order of effect. The claimant’s contention that Master Gidden lacked authority could not justify disregarding the order while it remained operative.
3. The stay could not be bypassed by treating the application as a further step in the claim or, on the facts, as a pre-action application for a new claim. The application expressly concerned the existing defendant and identified the stayed claim number.
4. In any event, the application could not properly be determined without notice. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, CPR PD 23, paragraph 3, without-notice applications are confined to narrowly defined circumstances, such as exceptional urgency. The alleged risk of a further attendance by the defendant did not justify making the wide injunctions sought without giving the defendant an opportunity to respond.
5. The stay did not dismiss the claim. The claimant retained the opportunity to apply by 27 January 2025 to lift it, supported by particulars complying with CPR Part 16. The application was dismissed, but was not certified as totally without merit.

The judgment was a first-instance decision in the Interim Applications Court. The court considered an existing claim that had been stayed by Master Gidden on 20 December 2024. The stay remained operative and was not lifted.