Totally Without Merit Claims
A Claimant who described himself as Shrek in an email, and referred to various High Court Judges who dealt with his claim as ‘judicial gangsters’ has had his claims struck out against all Defendants under CPR r3.4(2)(a)(b) and (c): Senna v Henderson & Ors [2021] EWHC 453 QB Julian Knowles J
The claims were struck out because of the Claimant’s conduct, because they had been pleaded in a way which did not comply with the rules, practice directions and/or orders of a Master; and/or because the pleadings were generally deficient and did not set out what needed to be set out in order to amount to coherent and legally cognisable claims.
They disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing the claims, or were otherwise incoherent and made no sense; alternatively, to the extent that they did contain a coherent set of facts, the facts, even if true, did not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the Defendants.
The Judge certified the claims as being totally without merit (TWM). On those grounds, and given the Claimant’s history, the Court was invited to make a civil restraint order.
Paragraph 3.1 of PD 3C provides that an extended civil restraint order may be made by, among others, a judge of the High Court where a party had persistently issued claims or made applications which were totally without merit.
Newey J considered what was meant by ‘persistently’ in this context in CFC 26 Ltd v Brown Shipley & Co Ltd [2017 ] 1 WLR 4589. He held, in agreement with previous first instance authority, that ‘persistence’ in this context required at least three TWM claims or applications.
This was approved by the Court of Appeal in Sartipy v Tigris Industries Inc [2019] EWCA Civ 225.
Choudhury J said in MB v RGB [2020] EWHC 3022 (QB): “There it was held that although at least three TWM claims or applications are the minimum, the question remains whether the party concerned is acting ‘persistently’. That will require an evaluation of the parties’ overall conduct.
“In deciding to make a Civil Restraint Order, the Court is entitled to take into account any previous claims or applications that were found to be totally without merit.”
In the present case the Claimant easily satisfied the test of ‘persistence’.
Counsel told the Court that there had been 27 TWM applications by the Claimant in the proceedings. That figure included the applications certified as TWM by Warby J following the Claimant’s November 2020 application.
Those Claims certified as TWM in the judgment added to that figure. It was plain that the number of wholly meritless applications made by the Claimant far exceeded the necessary figure of three to amount to ‘persistence’.
Furthermore, since 2002 the Claimant had been a serial nuisance litigator who had been subject to two extended civil restraint orders in the past.
The present claims were merely the latest sorry chapter of failed litigation that had disproportionately utilised precious court resources and caused distress, expense and inconvenience to others.
The Court therefore made an extended civil restraint order against the Claimant for a period of two years, the effect being that the Claimant was in certain cases restrained from issuing claims or making applications in the High Court or County Court.
By virtue of [3.3(1)] of PD 3C, if the Claimant issued a claim or made an application in a court identified in the order concerning any matter involving or relating to or touching upon or leading to the proceedings in which the order was made without first obtaining the permission of a judge identified in the order, the claim or application would be automatically struck out or dismissed.