Atole Timothy Enaholo v Totally Plc & Anor

A general civil restraint order may be imposed where a litigant persistently issues claims or applications which are totally without merit, creating an objective risk of further abuse of the court process. The court must then assess the risk of future unmeritorious litigation and impose the least restrictive order shown to be necessary. A general order is appropriate where an extended order would not sufficiently protect the administration of justice, including because the litigant’s conduct is not confined to one proceeding, issue or group of parties. A civil restraint order regulates access by requiring permission before proceedings continue; it does not extinguish the right of access to the courts.

The defendants applied under paragraph 4.1 of CPR Practice Direction 3C for a general civil restraint order against the claimant, alternatively an extended order. The claimant was already subject to a limited civil restraint order, later extended to include the defendants.

The application arose from a history of repeated claims and applications in these and related proceedings. Nine applications had been certified as totally without merit, and the claimant had received repeated warnings about the risk of a civil restraint order. The central issues were whether the persistence criterion and the risk of further abuse were established, and what form and duration of order were proportionate.

1. Application granted. The court made a general civil restraint order against the claimant for three years.
2. The court had jurisdiction to consider the application notwithstanding the claimant’s assertion that an earlier hearing had dismissed it. The claimant produced no transcript or other evidence that the earlier order was inaccurate, and the court’s jurisdiction to consider a civil restraint order is continuing.
3. The relevant sequence is: whether the litigant has persistently issued claims or made applications which are totally without merit; whether there is a risk of further claims or applications abusing the court’s process; and what is the least restrictive order required. For a general order, the court must also consider whether an extended order would be insufficient or inappropriate.
4. The persistence criterion was met. Nine applications in the present proceedings had been certified as totally without merit. Other applications and claims, although not formally certified, were plainly meritless. The claimant repeatedly refused to accept adverse decisions and continued to advance allegations which had no evidential foundation.
5. There was a real, indeed highly probable, risk of further abuse. The claimant’s conduct was not confined to one proceeding, issue or defendant. It extended to medical professionals, public bodies, former employers and other organisations. The continuing nature and breadth of the conduct supported a general order.
6. An extended order would not provide sufficient protection because the risk extended beyond the parties and subject matter of the present proceedings. A general order was therefore necessary and proportionate. Such an order imposed a permission requirement rather than abolishing access to the courts.