E v Y
[2024] EWFC 348
P (a child) (Extended Civil Restraint Order – abusive applicant), Re
15 June 2023
[2023] EWFC 110 (B)
Family Court
A man kept making silly and mean court requests against his ex. The judge got fed up, stopped him from making more requests without permission for two years, and made him pay for the trouble he caused.
Key Facts
- •AB (Applicant) and CD (Respondent) have a history of contentious legal proceedings involving Children Act and Family Law Act applications.
- •The judge previously found AB to be unacceptably abusive to CD and various professionals.
- •AB made multiple applications after a May 16, 2023 judgment, including to vary/discharge a non-molestation order, for a non-molestation order against CD, for the judge's recusal, and to move the case to Bromley Family Court.
- •These applications were considered by the judge to be without merit and for the purpose of harassing CD and wasting court time.
- •AB exhibited disruptive and abusive behavior during the hearing.
- •AB has a history of making applications without merit over the past 14 months.
Legal Principles
Test for actual or perceived bias (recusal)
Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67
Powers to discharge or make non-molestation orders, considering health, safety and wellbeing of all parties
Family Law Act 1996, ss. 42, 42(5), 49
Power to make civil restraint order
Family Procedure Rules, Pt. 4.8; Practice Direction 4B
Outcomes
Dismissed AB's applications to vary/discharge the non-molestation order, for a non-molestation order against CD, for the judge's recusal, and to move the case to Bromley Family Court.
Applications were without merit, intended to harass CD, and wasted court time. No evidence supported the applications.
Extended civil restraint order made against AB until June 15, 2025.
AB's persistent, meritless applications, abusive behavior, and waste of court resources necessitated stronger measures. This was done pursuant to Pt.4.8 of the Family Procedure Rules.
AB ordered to pay costs.
AB's baseless applications, abusive behavior, and unreasonable conduct caused excessive public expenditure.