Society of Lloyd's v Noel 

[2015] EWHC 734 (QB), [2015] 1 WLR 4393, [2015] All ER (D) 222 (Mar)

Court: QBD

Judgment Date: 20/03/2015

Catchwords & Digest

PRACTICE - CIVIL LITIGATION – CIVIL RESTRAINT ORDERS (CRO'S) – CLAIMANT BRINGING LITIGATION AGAINST LLOYDS – LITIGATION BEING DEEMED 'TOTALLY WITHOUT MERIT' – LLOYDS OBTAINING CRO – CRO EXPIRING – LLOYDS SEEKING EXTENDED CRO – WHETHER N PERSISTENTLY ISSUING CLAIMS TOTALLY WITHOUT MERIT – WHETHER COURT HAVING POWER TO MAKE ORDER – WHETHER COURT TO EXERCISE DISCRETION TO MAKE ORDER – CPR 2.3.

N was a former underwriting member of Lloyd's. She suffered severe financial loses. She had for some time disputed liabilities said to be owed by her in relation to the meeting of claims for asbestos-related injuries. N considered that she had been the victim of fraud or deception in connection with the claim that she was liable for. N brought several sets of proceedings for fraud against Lloyd's. The Court of Appeal dismissed all applications and certified that all the applications were totally without merit. Further applications alleging fraud were struck out as being totally without merit. Lloyd's obtained an extended civil restraint order (CRO) against N. CPR 2.3 provided that a civil restraint order meant an order restraining a party from making any further applications , issuing certain claims or making certain applications in specified courts (an extended civil restraint order). That order was to last for two years. Lloyd's applied inter partes for an extended CRO against N.

There were three issues that the court needed to consider before making an extended CRO, namely: (i) was the precondition for the making of such an order satisfied, that was had the individual persistently issued claims or made applications which were totally without merit; (ii) if so, and if the court had power to make such an order, was it appropriate in the circumstances to make such an order; (iii) if so, for what period of time, and on what terms, should such an order be granted.
The application would be allowed.

In considering whether a party had persistently issued claims or made claims which were totally without merit, a court was entitled to have regard to all such claims and applications including those made prior to the making of an earlier extended civil restraint order (see [55] of the judgment).

In the present case, therefore, the court was entitled to have regard to the totally without merit applications made by N prior to the making of an earlier extended CRO as well as those made after the expiry of that order. Further, on the facts, it was an appropriate case for making an extended CRO. There was a very high risk that, unless such an order was made, N would continue to make further totally unmeritorious applications relating to matters connected with her membership of Lloyd's. The making of an extended civil restraint order, designed to prevent her from making such applications except with permission of the court, and subject to an appropriately worded exception to take account of possible bankruptcy proceedings, with a duration of two years, was an appropriate, proportionate and just order. Only such an order would prevent N from seeking to continue to use the limited time and resources of the courts on litigation which was totally without merit. For that reason, the CRO order would be made (see [46], [53] of the judgment).