Farid El Diwany v Solicitors Regulation Authority Limited
[2023] EWHC 1707 (Admin)
RUPERT ST JOHN WEBSTER v JOHN FRANCIS PENLEY & Anor.
10 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 1034 (Ch)
High Court
A man kept filing losing lawsuits, so the judge made a rule to stop him from filing more unless he gets special permission first. Because he kept ignoring the court, the rule was extended for two more years. He also has to pay the other side's legal costs.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Webster persistently issued claims and made applications deemed totally without merit.
- •Three civil restraint orders (CROs) were previously issued against Mr. Webster.
- •The current application concerns an extension of an existing extended civil restraint order (ECRO).
- •The underlying disputes relate to the will of Valerie St John Webster and the consequences thereof, including Mr. Webster's eviction from The Priory and subsequent disputes concerning Bondip Farmhouse.
- •Mr. Webster's actions were described as obsessive and failing to accept court orders.
- •Mr. Webster engaged in correspondence containing allegations and threats against the applicants.
- •The court considered the necessity of protecting litigants from vexatious proceedings and protecting court resources.
Legal Principles
The court's power to make and extend civil restraint orders is found in CPR 3.11 and Practice Direction 3C.
CPR 3.11, Practice Direction 3C
An extended CRO may be made where a party has persistently issued claims or made applications that are totally without merit (at least three occasions).
Practice Direction 3C, paragraph 3.1
The test for extending an ECRO (paragraph 3.10) is distinct from the initial imposition of an order (paragraph 3.1). The test for extension is whether it's appropriate, considering the need to protect litigants from vexatious proceedings and protect court resources.
Practice Direction 3C, paragraphs 3.1 and 3.10; Ashcroft v Webster [2017] EWHC 887 (Ch); AEY v AL [2020] EWHC 3539 (Fam); Hurst v Green [2022] EWHC 2895 (Ch); Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset v Gray [2019] EWCA Civ 1675
Outcomes
The ECRO against Mr. Webster is extended for a further two years.
Mr. Webster's persistent issuance of claims and applications deemed totally without merit, his obsessive approach, and his continued disregard for court orders justify the extension to protect the applicants and court resources.
Mr. Webster is ordered to pay costs of £14,000.
Costs are assessed on a standard basis, considering the straightforward nature of the application, Mr. Webster's partial success, and proportionality.
Similar Cases
Gillian Ridley v Blackpool County Court
[2023] EWCA Civ 586
Kehinde Aotunde Odukoya & Anor v Topaz Finance Limited t/a Malanite Mortgages
[2023] EWHC 441 (Ch)
P (a child) (Extended Civil Restraint Order – abusive applicant), Re
[2023] EWFC 110 (B)
Selwyn Campbell v Chief Land Registrar
[2023] EWHC 3087 (Ch)