All your resources at your fingertips.Learn More
The Times has reported an interesting case which concerns a bankrupt and a civil restraint order. The case is: In re Ludlam (Bankrupts), Chancery Division, October 26, 2009, before Mr Edward Bartley Jones QC. The report notes:
"For an extended civil restraint order to be issued, making someone a vexatious litigant, three unmeritorious claims or applications were the bare minimum to satisfy the requirement of persistence.
Mr Edward Bartley Jones, QC, sitting as a deputy Chancery Division judge, so stated on August 6, 2009, in a reserved judgment when making extended civil restraint orders against John Michael Ludlam and Caroline Lesley Ludlam.
HIS LORDSHIP said that, for an extended civil restraint order to be made, it was a pre-condition that the relevant person had “persistently issued claims or made applications which are totally without merit”: see paragraph 3.1 of Practice Direction C in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
When considering the making of such an order generally, the court was to engage in a graduated, and proportionate response to the identified abuse, which made it logical for the statutory scheme to have a higher precondition threshold for the making of an extended order as opposed to a limited or general order.
"This is the ultimate statement of where the law on IVAs is to be found in our great common law...