Donovan Sappleton v R1 & Anor

An extended civil restraint order may be made where a party has persistently made applications that are totally without merit. Its wider effect can justify a filter before applications to any court concerning matters connected with the proceedings, especially where repeated litigation is being used as coercive control and causes distress, court time and public expense.

Under the Family Procedure Rules 2010 and the applicable civil costs rules, the court may consider a non-party costs order in favour of the Legal Aid Agency where a legally aided respondent’s costs are unlikely to be recovered. Open justice may justify naming an unsuccessful applicant despite a risk of jigsaw identification of a child, after balancing Articles 6, 8 and 10.

This was the second first-instance judgment concerning an application for permission to bring committal proceedings against the first respondent and her father. The applicant did not attend, but the court found that he had proper notice and had been served. The first respondent was represented; the second respondent did not attend. The first respondent was the child’s mother, so naming her could risk identifying the child.

The court considered whether to make an extended civil restraint order, whether costs should be directed to the Legal Aid Agency as a non-party, and whether the judgment should identify the applicant. The earlier judgment in the same application, Mr Sappleton v R1 & R2 [2026] EWHC 1782 (Fam), had preceded this hearing.

Disposition. The court proceeded in the applicant’s absence, made an extended civil restraint order against him, and held that he should be named in the judgment while R1 remained anonymous. Any third-party costs order was left for a possible application by the Legal Aid Agency for effectively indemnity costs, to be dealt with on the papers if made.

1. Proceeding in the applicant’s absence. The applicant had proper notice, had received and acknowledged the documents by email, had filed a response, and had previously attended when the hearing date was fixed. It was therefore appropriate to proceed despite the absence of an express order permitting service by email.
2. Extended civil restraint order. Under FPR r4.8 and section 3 of Practice Direction 4B, an ECRO may be made where a party has persistently made applications that are totally without merit. Its effect extends to applications to any court concerning matters involving, relating to, touching upon or leading to the proceedings in which it is made. Four previous High Court applications had been certified as totally without merit. The continuing applications, distress, coercive control, court time and public expense made the order overwhelmingly in the interests of justice.
3. Costs. Rule 28.1 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 gives the court a broad discretion as to costs. Rule 28.2 applies CPR r.46 to family costs proceedings, including the power to make a non-party costs order subject to the procedural safeguards in CPR r.46.2(1). An order in favour of R1’s solicitors was unlikely to be enforced because the Legal Aid Agency did not fund enforcement and the solicitors lacked a financial incentive to pursue recovery. An order in favour of the Legal Aid Agency would create a direct incentive to recover public money and could discourage abusive litigation. The Agency was left to decide whether to seek effectively indemnity costs under FPR 28.1 and CPR 44.3(8).
4. Publication and anonymity. R1 was not to be named because she was the child’s mother and naming her could identify the child and cause further harassment. The open justice principle, recognised in Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417, and the importance of naming individuals in reports of proceedings identified in Application by Guardian News and Media Ltd and others in Her Majesty’s Treasury v Mohammed Jabar Ahmed and others (FC) [2010] UKSC 1, supported naming the applicant. Balancing Article 10 rights against Article 8 interests, and considering open justice under Article 6, the public interest in identifying an applicant who had brought wholly unmeritorious proceedings outweighed the risk of jigsaw identification.

The judgment is a first-instance decision. It records an earlier judgment in the same application, Mr Sappleton v R1 & R2 [2026] EWHC 1782 (Fam), which preceded this hearing. No appellate decision is stated.