X & Ors, Re
[2024] EWFC 62 (B)
Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council v EM & Ors
21 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 657 (Fam)
High Court
A dad kept making lots of angry, false claims to the court about his child's care. The judge got fed up and stopped him from making any more claims without permission, for a long time. The judge also stopped the dad from contacting the court except by regular mail, to protect court staff. This was to protect the child and the court system.
Key Facts
- •Care proceedings concluded with a care order for 12-year-old T in December 2023.
- •Respondent (T's father, EM) repeatedly filed unfounded and abusive applications and communications.
- •Respondent failed to attend the hearing, offering various unsubstantiated reasons.
- •Respondent's actions significantly disrupted court operations and caused distress to staff and T.
- •Applicant sought a section 91(14) order and an ECRO against the Respondent.
Legal Principles
Welfare of the child is paramount in care proceedings.
Children Act 1989, section 1(1)
Section 91(14) CA 1989 allows the court to prohibit further applications without leave.
Children Act 1989, section 91(14)
Section 91A CA 1989 lowers the threshold for a section 91(14) order to situations where an application would put the child or another individual at risk of harm.
Children Act 1989, section 91A
An ECRO can be made if a party persistently issues claims or makes applications without merit.
Family Procedure Rules 2010, rule 4.8 and PD4B; In the matter of Ludlum (a bankrupt) [2009] EWHC 2067 (Ch); AEY v AL [2018] EWHC 3253
The court has inherent jurisdiction to regulate its processes and prevent abuse.
Inherent jurisdiction of the High Court; Attorney-General v Ebert [2002] 2 All ER 789; Agarwala v Agarwala [2016] EWCA Civ 1252
Outcomes
Section 91(14) order made prohibiting the Respondent from making further applications under the Children Act 1989 without leave until T turns 16.
Respondent's persistent, abusive, and harmful applications put T's welfare at risk.
ECRO made for two years, restricting the Respondent from making applications relating to the care proceedings without permission from Mr Justice Poole or Mr Justice Cobb.
Respondent persistently made applications without merit.
Injunction made prohibiting the Respondent from contacting the court office by email or telephone, allowing communication only via letter sent by Royal Mail.
Respondent's actions significantly disrupted court operations and caused distress to staff.