Mortgage Five Zero Limited v The Secretary of State for Business and Trade
[2023] EWHC 2654 (Ch)
Selwyn Campbell v Chief Land Registrar
6 October 2023
[2023] EWHC 3087 (Ch)
High Court
A man kept trying to sue over a mortgage, even after a judge already said he was wrong. Because he wouldn't stop, a judge banned him from starting any more lawsuits about it for three years.
Key Facts
- •Claimant (Mr. Selwyn Campbell) brought multiple applications, including one to consolidate his claim with five others and revoke a previous order, and another to consolidate with a claim against Barclays Bank, adjourn the hearing, and transfer to the Court of Appeal.
- •Claimant's claims consistently centered on arguing a mortgage charge was void due to alleged non-compliance with section 2(3) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989.
- •The claimant's claims were previously dismissed by Judge Hodge in January 2022, and this decision was not appealed.
- •Claimant did not attend the hearing and was not represented.
- •The Defendant (Chief Land Registrar) sought an Extended Civil Restraint Order (ECRO) or a Limited Civil Restraint Order (LCRO) to prevent further claims.
Legal Principles
Section 2(3) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 concerning the execution of mortgage deeds.
Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
Rules of Civil Procedure (CPR) concerning setting aside orders, particularly CPR 3.17.
Civil Procedure Rules (CPR)
Principles for granting Civil Restraint Orders (CROs), including the threshold for Limited CROs and Extended CROs and the guidance from *Sartipy v Tigris Industries Inc* [2019] 1 WLR 5892.
Sartipy v Tigris Industries Inc [2019] 1 WLR 5892
Outcomes
Claimant's July application to consolidate and revoke Judge Hodge's order was dismissed and certified as totally without merit.
No rational basis existed for the application. The route to challenge Judge Hodge's decision was an appeal, which was not pursued. The court will not allow re-running of dismissed arguments.
Claimant's September application to consolidate with a claim against the Bank, adjourn, and transfer to the Court of Appeal was dismissed and certified as totally without merit.
The application was based on the same dismissed legal point. Transferring already-dismissed proceedings to the Court of Appeal is an abuse of process and lacks procedural basis.
An Extended Civil Restraint Order (ECRO) was granted against the claimant for a period of three years.
The claimant persistently pursued meritless claims based on the same legal point over a long period, meeting the threshold for an ECRO. This was deemed necessary to prevent further abuse of process.