Banner Universal Motion Pictures Limited v Wiggin LLP & Anor

An extended civil restraint order does not permit a litigant to obtain substantive relief without permission and a properly constituted judicial application. A draft order is not effective merely because the opposing parties have not responded. Orders made in earlier proceedings remain effective unless set aside through the appropriate process; they are not rendered void by assertion. Where repeated communications seek to reopen concluded matters or obtain relief without merit, the court may refuse the application and certify it as totally without merit.

The appellant had appealed against summary judgment granted in favour of Wiggin LLP and Fox Williams LLP by Deputy Master Linwood on 23 February 2024. Permission to appeal was refused on the papers and at an oral renewal, and the application was certified as totally without merit. Applications to reopen or set aside those decisions were also refused.

An extended civil restraint order was subsequently made against Mr Banner and Banner Universal Motion Pictures Ltd. The company’s latest communications sought approval and sealing of a draft order claiming extensive damages, setting aside earlier orders and granting injunctive and intellectual-property relief. The issue was whether those communications could obtain such relief without permission under the order and without an ordinary judicial process.

1. Application refused. The court treated the recent communications as an application under the extended civil restraint order seeking to set aside orders made in earlier proceedings and to obtain judgment for £352 million. The application was certified as totally without merit.
2. Under the extended civil restraint order, the respondents were not required to respond to further demands unless a judge gave permission to serve an application seeking relief within its scope. No such permission had been given. The absence of any response therefore did not make the draft order unopposed or entitle the applicant to its approval.
3. Substantive relief could not be granted in the summary manner proposed. Even if the applicant had had merit, entitlement to damages, injunctions or the setting aside of prior orders would require a judicial process in which the relevant case was properly formulated and established.
4. The earlier orders in the 2017 action, the 2023 action and the appeal, together with the extended civil restraint order, remained effective. They were not void merely because the applicant alleged that they were invalid.
5. The court could not prevent further applications under the extended civil restraint order altogether. However, future communications would not be considered unless properly formulated as an application notice under the order and accompanied by the appropriate fee.

• High Court, Chancery Division: Deputy Master Linwood granted summary judgment for the respondents on the entire claim on 23 February 2024: [2024] EWHC 656 (Ch).
• Chancery Appeals: Permission to appeal was refused on the papers. A renewed oral application was rejected and certified as totally without merit. Applications to reopen or set aside that decision were refused. The present application was refused and certified as totally without merit.