Gillian Ridley v Blackpool County Court
[2023] EWCA Civ 586
Kehinde Aotunde Odukoya & Anor v Topaz Finance Limited t/a Malanite Mortgages
2 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 441 (Ch)
High Court
Mr. Odukoya kept losing court cases about his house, making up reasons why he shouldn't have to leave. The judge got fed up and stopped him from starting any more cases, because his claims were nonsense.
Key Facts
- •Kehinde Odukoya (Claimant 1) granted a legal charge over his flat to Beacon Homeloans International in 2007.
- •Odukoya fell into arrears, and a possession order was granted in 2012, suspended on condition of payment.
- •Odukoya repeatedly breached the order and made numerous unsuccessful applications to set aside the order, arguing the legal charge was void due to non-compliance with s.2(3) of the Law of Property Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989.
- •These applications were dismissed at various court levels, including the Court of Appeal and the High Court, with the judgments consistently rejecting Odukoya's arguments.
- •Odukoya continued to resist possession, leading to further court proceedings and evictions.
- •Topaz Finance (Defendant), the assignee of the legal charge, applied for an extended civil restraint order against Odukoya.
Legal Principles
Section 2(3) of the Law of Property Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 does not apply to legal charges which effect a disposition of land, only contracts for disposition.
Eagle Star Insurance Company Ltd. v. Green [2001] EWCA Civ 1398; Helden v. Strathmore Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 542; Judge Michell's judgment in the First-Tier Tribunal.
An extended civil restraint order can be made against a party who has persistently issued claims or made applications which are totally without merit.
Practice Direction 3C, paragraph 3.1(2)
A deputy High Court Judge appointed under s.9(4) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 has the power to make a civil restraint order.
Senior Courts Act 1981, s.9(5); CPR rule 2.3(1)
Time for service of an application can be retrospectively extended under CPR rule 3.1(2)(a) if there is good reason, considering principles in Denton v. T.H. White Ltd [2014] 1 W.L.R. 3926.
CPR rule 3.1(2)(a); Denton v. T.H. White Ltd [2014] 1 W.L.R. 3926
Outcomes
Extended civil restraint order made against Mr Odukoya.
Mr Odukoya persistently issued claims and applications that were totally without merit, repeatedly attempting to re-litigate issues already decided against him. This was done despite previous limited civil restraint orders and clear legal precedent.
Retrospective extension of time granted for service of the application for the civil restraint order.
The delay in service was insignificant and did not prejudice Mr Odukoya. His non-attendance at the hearing, following a pattern of previous non-attendances, suggested deliberate avoidance.