Gillian Ridley v Blackpool County Court
[2023] EWCA Civ 586
Cheryl Plummer v Joshua Jacob Friedlander
22 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 3241 (Ch)
High Court
Cheryl Plummer sued the same person multiple times over the same thing, and each time her lawsuits were dismissed because they were baseless. Because she kept doing this and showed signs of being part of a vexatious litigation scheme, a court order was made to stop her from filing more frivolous lawsuits.
Key Facts
- •Ms. Cheryl Plummer repeatedly filed meritless lawsuits against Mr. Joshua Jacob Friedlander and his solicitors, relating to a property transaction.
- •Five sets of proceedings were initiated in the County Court, all dismissed or struck out.
- •Three orders explicitly stated the claims were totally without merit; three others were retrospectively deemed so by Mr. Justice Miles.
- •Ms. Plummer failed to appear or respond to communications regarding the civil restraint order (CRO) application.
- •The court found connections between Ms. Plummer and Leslie Gayle-Childs, a known vexatious litigant.
- •Ms. Plummer's filings exhibited hallmarks of vexatious litigation, including use of accommodation addresses, unclear representation, and disorganised documentation.
- •Mr. Friedlander incurred significant costs defending these actions.
Legal Principles
Requirements for a Civil Restraint Order (CRO), including the need for persistently issuing claims without merit.
Sartipy v Tigris Industries Inc [2019] EWCA Civ 225; White Book paragraph 3.11(2)
The court may consider previous applications, not only those explicitly certified as without merit, when deciding on a CRO.
Sartipy v Tigris Industries Inc [2019] EWCA Civ 225
A General Civil Restraint Order (GCRO) can be issued when a party persistently issues claims totally without merit, exceeding the scope of an extended CRO.
Implicit in the judgment's reasoning and application of Sartipy principles
Outcomes
A General Civil Restraint Order (GCRO) was granted against Ms. Cheryl Plummer.
Ms. Plummer persistently issued multiple meritless claims, exhibited vexatious litigation behavior linked to a known vexatious litigant, and caused substantial prejudice to Mr. Friedlander.