BOR, R (on the application of) v Family Court at Cardiff

An extended civil restraint order requires three claims or applications certified as totally without merit. The court must then exercise a separate discretion, considering whether restraint is necessary to protect the administration of justice and proportionate to the risk of further unmeritorious proceedings. The order protects the court process from abuse; it must not prevent properly arguable claims. In assessing risk, the court may consider the litigant’s overall conduct, stated intentions and whether the circumstances generating the hopeless claims are continuing. Judicial review is concerned with public law flaws in decision-making, not a further merits appeal, where an adequate appellate or other remedy exists.

The claimant challenged decisions arising from earlier Family Court proceedings concerning the care of her child. Permission for the judicial review claim was refused as substantially out of time and lacking a sufficient prospect of success. The claim and a later judicial review claim concerning a magistrates’ court decision were certified as totally without merit. The claimant’s permission applications were refused, and she was warned that further totally without merit applications could result in a civil restraint order.

The Vale of Glamorgan Council applied under CPR 3.11 and Practice Direction 3C for an extended civil restraint order covering civil claims relating to the Family Court’s functions concerning the child.

1. Application granted. The threshold for an extended civil restraint order was established. The claimant had made at least three applications in judicial review proceedings which had been certified as totally without merit. The certificates were sufficient, without reliance on a further Family Court certificate.
2. “Totally without merit” means that the claim or application is bound to fail and has no rational argument for success. It need not be vexatious or an abuse of process. “Persistently” requires an evaluation of the litigant’s overall conduct.
3. The threshold does not make an order automatic. The court must assess whether restraint is necessary to protect the administration of justice from abuse and whether it is proportionate to the risk that further totally without merit proceedings will waste court time and resources. The claimant’s repeated hopeless applications, refusal to accept the judicial certificates, and further judicial review claim issued after an express warning demonstrated a high risk of repetition.
4. The order was confined to civil court claims concerning matters relating to the exercise of Family Court functions under the Children Act 1989 or the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014. It did not restrict access to the Family Courts. Permission under the order would be available for claims with merit.
5. The court rejected the claimant’s complaint that the judicial review proceedings had been determined without oral evidence. Judicial review ordinarily examines whether the decision-making process was flawed in public law. It is not a further merits review of Family Court outcomes, for which statutory appeal and discharge procedures provide adequate remedies. An extended civil restraint order was necessary and proportionate for three years.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Permission to pursue the claimant’s earlier judicial review was refused by Eyre J on 26 June 2025, principally because the claim was out of time and lacked sufficient prospects of success.
• Court of Appeal: Baker LJ refused permission to appeal on 3 November 2025 and certified the application as totally without merit.
• High Court (Administrative Court): HHJ Keyser KC refused permission in a separate judicial review claim on 17 October 2025 and certified it as totally without merit.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The present court made an extended civil restraint order for three years.