Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v John Forster Emmott
[2024] EWHC 2781 (Comm)
Jon Rivers v Chief Constable of Surrey Constabulary & Ors
12 June 2023
[2023] EWHC 1417 (Admin)
High Court
Dr. Rivers sued the police and their lawyers for mistakes in a report about him. The judge said he didn't follow the rules properly, didn't have enough evidence, and was trying to re-fight old battles. So, the judge threw out his case and might stop him from suing again.
Key Facts
- •Dr. Rivers brought committal for contempt applications against the Chief Constable of Surrey Constabulary, his solicitor, and counsel, relating to disclosures made under Clare's Law.
- •The disclosures contained inaccuracies originating from Suffolk Constabulary, wrongly stating Dr. Rivers had twice threatened to kill an ex-partner.
- •Dr. Rivers challenged the disclosures via judicial review, which was dismissed by Freedman J and the appeal refused by Dingemans LJ.
- •The contempt applications alleged dishonesty and misleading of the court by the defendants.
- •Sir Duncan Ouseley ordered a directions hearing to assess the applications' compliance and merit.
Legal Principles
Procedural requirements for committal applications are specific to ensure procedural fairness and Article 6 ECHR rights.
Part 81 of the CPR
Committal for contempt requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of the facts and dishonesty.
Sir Duncan Ouseley's Order
Allegations of contempt must be clearly particularized, specifying acts and dishonesty.
Sir Duncan Ouseley's Order, Re L; In the matter of Gous Oddin [2016] EWCA Civ 173
The court has power to strike out committal applications if they are an abuse of process or attempt to relitigate previous issues.
Taylor v Robinson [2021] EWHC 664 (Ch)
Permission is required for contempt applications relating to interference with the administration of justice unless within existing proceedings.
CPR 81.3(5)(a)
A claimant in committal proceedings must be an appropriate guardian of the public interest.
Elliott v Tinkler [2014] EWCA Civ 564
Litigants in person are still bound by the rules and court orders.
Taylor v Robinson [2021] EWHC 664 (Ch)
Outcomes
The committal applications were struck out as without legal foundation.
Dr. Rivers failed to comply with CPR Part 81 requirements, the Ouseley Order, and did not provide sufficient evidence of dishonesty or meet the criminal standard of proof. The applications were also deemed an abuse of process by attempting to relitigate previous judgments and lacked proper service.
Other applications by Dr. Rivers (to strike out the defendants' statement of case, seek summary judgment, and adduce bad character evidence) were also struck out as without merit.
These applications lacked legal basis within the context of the dismissed judicial review and were deemed irrelevant.
The court indicated it would issue an extended civil restraint order against Dr. Rivers to prevent further vexatious litigation.
Dr. Rivers' pattern of behavior, characterized by voluminous filings, repeated allegations, and disregard for court orders, justified the order.