RUPERT ST JOHN WEBSTER v JOHN FRANCIS PENLEY & Anor.
[2023] EWHC 1034 (Ch)
Phil Ryan v LVR Capital Limited
19 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1866 (Ch)
High Court
A company director used strange legal arguments to fight the administration of his company. The judge threw out his cases, saying his arguments made no sense and were abusive. The judge also banned him from bringing any more cases related to this without permission for three years and made him pay the costs.
Key Facts
- •Phil Ryan, sole director of LVR Capital Limited (in administration), brought multiple claims against the company and associated parties.
- •Ryan's claims were based on a 'freeman on the land' ideology and contained pseudolegal arguments.
- •The company applied to strike out Ryan's three Part 7 claims and for an Extended Civil Restraint Order (ECRO).
- •Ryan's claims involved purported liens, trust arrangements, and disputed ownership of properties.
- •Ryan's actions included sending nonsensical legal notices, statutory demands, and attempts to initiate private prosecutions.
- •Ryan repeatedly challenged court orders related to the company's administration and possession of properties.
Legal Principles
Striking out a statement of case under CPR 3.4(2) if it discloses no reasonable grounds, is an abuse of process, or fails to comply with rules.
CPR 3.4(2)
Claims totally without merit can be struck out and lead to a civil restraint order. A claim is totally without merit if there is no rational basis on which it could succeed.
CPR 3.4(6); Sartipy v Tigris Industries Inc [2019] EWCA Civ 225 at [27]
Bringing a claim against a company in administration requires the consent of the administrators or court permission under paragraph 43(6) of Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
Insolvency Act 1986, paragraph 43(6) of Schedule B1
Res judicata prevents relitigating issues already decided.
Not explicitly cited, but implied in the judgment.
An Extended Civil Restraint Order (ECRO) can be made against a party who persistently issues claims or applications totally without merit (at least three).
CPR 3.11(2); Practice Direction 3C; Sartipy v Tigris Industries Inc [2019] EWCA Civ 225 at [28]-[32]
Outcomes
Claims A, B, and C were struck out as totally without merit.
Claims lacked reasonable grounds, were incoherent, based on incorrect legal principles, and/or amounted to an abuse of process. They also failed to obtain necessary consent for claims against an insolvent company.
An Extended Civil Restraint Order (ECRO) was made against Phil Ryan for three years.
Ryan persistently issued claims and applications that were totally without merit, demonstrating a pattern of abusive litigation related to the company's administration. His actions wasted court resources and disrupted the administration process.
Phil Ryan was ordered to pay the company's costs on an indemnity basis.
The company was the successful party, and Ryan's abusive conduct justified indemnity costs.
Similar Cases
Invenia Technical Computing Corporation & Anor v Matthew Hudson
[2024] EWHC 1302 (Ch)
Mortgage Five Zero Limited v The Secretary of State for Business and Trade
[2023] EWHC 2654 (Ch)
Selwyn Campbell v Chief Land Registrar
[2023] EWHC 3087 (Ch)
Farid El Diwany v Solicitors Regulation Authority Limited
[2023] EWHC 1707 (Admin)