Civil Restraint Orders: A Safeguard Against Vexatious Litigation

The recent High Court judgment in this case offers an important insight into how English courts handle persistent and vexatious legal actions. This case demonstrates not only the court’s robust powers to protect litigants from abusive proceedings, but also the interplay between Civil Restraint Orders and fair access to justice.

Civil Restraint Orders are useful tools in the court’s armoury and are used when an individual repeatedly brings claims or applications that are “totally without merit”.

In this case, Dr Haddad found himself subject to an Extended Civil Restraint Order (ECRO) following a pattern of litigation against the Defendants and their English legal representatives. The ECRO was originally made in 2023 and was due to expire on 22 July 2026. The Defendants applied to the court to have it extended for a further three years on the basis of ongoing abusive behaviour, persistent attempts to re-litigate previously decided issues and continued threats to bring new claims.

It should be noted that a Civil Restraint Order does not wholly preclude access to the courts. Instead, it acts as a filter as further claims or applications can only proceed with the court’s permission and only if they are properly arguable and not simply another version of rejected arguments. Courts are particularly vigilant where litigants threaten repetitive or baseless legal proceedings.

A significant feature of this judgment is that Dr Haddad applied to have Mr Justice Rajah recuse himself, alleging apparent bias as a result of his involvement with the previous ECRO decisions. The Judge made it clear that the test for apparent bias is whether the fair minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased. The Judge reaffirmed that familiarity with the case rather than creating bias, often benefits judicial efficiency which is in the interests of all parties. Only in rare circumstances will familiarity with a case cross the threshold for recusal, and mere dissatisfaction with a Judge’s rulings is insufficient.

Mr Justice Rajah made it clear in his approved judgment that, having considered Dr Haddad’s ongoing vexatious conduct and the need to protect litigants and the court’s resources, the ECRO would be extended for a further three years from its expiry.

Comment

If you are concerned about persistent or vexatious litigation, or if you have any questions about Civil Restraint Orders such as ECROs, please contact our expert team. We can guide you through the options for seeking protection.