The claimant claimed the right to moor boats on part of the river Thames. Following the dismissal of that claim, the judge made an extended civil restraint order against the claimant. Subsequently, and without first obtaining permission to do so, the claimant issued a claim for professional negligence against, inter alios, counsel who had represented him in the earlier claim. The third defendant barrister applied for a declaration that the claim against him had been automatically struck out pursuant to paragraph 3.1 of Practice Direction 3C supplementing CPR Pt 3. The claimant contended that the professional negligence claim was not within the scope of the extended civil restraint order, which only caught claims and applications against the defendants to the earlier claim.
On the third defendant’s application for a declaration—
Held, application granted. That the requirements in the Practice Direction and paragraph 1 of the extended civil restraint order for notice to be served on “the other party” and for any response from that party to be included in an application for permission, suggested that the civil restraint order was primarily intended to catch claims and applications against the defendants to the first claim. Nevertheless, the operative words of the order were not limited to claims or applications against the same defendants. Moreover there was good reason not to interpret the order as being restricted to claims or applications against the same defendants. The purpose of an extended civil restraint order was to prevent harassment of defendants and waste of court resources by the issuing of claims, or the making of applications which were totally without merit. It would be far too easy for parties to defeat that purpose if an extended civil restraint order were limited to claims or applications against the same defendants. The fact that the claim was not directed against the defendants to the first claim did not mean that it had no effect on them. On the contrary, there was an obvious risk that representatives of the defendants may be called as witnesses and/or that disclosure would be sought from them. Nor did it mean that court resources would not be wasted if the claim was totally without merit. Accordingly, the claim against the defendant, being caught by the extended civil restraint order, was automatically struck out. The claimant would, however ,be given permission to issue a fresh claim against the third defendant (paras 25, 27, 34, 35).
Andrew Burr (instructed by Synthesis Chambers Solicitors) for the claimant.
Amanda Savage (instructed by DAC Beachcroft llp) for the third defendant.