“Civil Restraint Order The Court shall refer the matter to the Designated Civil or Family Judge for consideration to the making of a Civil Restraint Order.”
“In addition, I have considered whether an extended or general Civil Restraint Order should be made against the Father. That, in my judgment, would complement the making of a section 91(14) order, because it extends the filter to other types of litigation, and I have in mind specifically theFamily Law Act 1996 applications. The Father has submitted that he will apply to discharge the Non-Molestation Orders, if he is acquitted at the end of the criminal proceedings, which increases my concerns. Given that I do not have the jurisdiction to make an extended or general Civil Restraint Order, I am going to direct a transcript of this judgment at public expense, so that I can refer that issue to the designated family or civil judge, to consider [and that judgment has been transcribed and circulated to all parties].”
“I have outlined the procedural history in some detail, quite deliberately. That, in itself, illustrates, in my judgement, how the Father has used litigation post-separation as a form of abuse directed at the Mother. I do not believe, for example, that his contempt application, made shortly after these proceedings were commenced, was for a purpose other than to put the Mother under pressure and to try and control outcomes for himself. He told me directly, in fact, at the hearing on 4 April, that he did not want to see the Mother punished.”
“In my judgement, it is highly likely that the contempt application was made as a form of abuse against the Mother in those circumstances, and I am going to make a finding to that effect.”
“What the Father’s litigation also shows amply, in my judgment, is that when the Father does not like outcomes that are imposed on him, he finds them difficult to accept, he then tries relentlessly, I think, to push the boundaries of what he is, or he is not, permitted to do; or he attempts to control outcomes in other ways.”
“Rules 4.3(7), 4.4(5) and 18.13 provide that where a statement of case or application is struck out or dismissed and is totally without merit, the court…must specify that fact and the court must consider whether to make a civil restraint order…”
“58. As explained by the Court of Appeal in the leading case of Bhamjee v Forsdick[2004] 1 WLR 88 , the rationale for the regime of civil restraint orders is that a litigant who makes claims or applications which have absolutely no merit harms the administration of justice by wasting the limited time and resources of the courts. Such claims and applications consume public funds and divert the courts from dealing with cases which have real merit. Litigants who repeatedly make hopeless claims or applications impose costs on others for no good purpose and usually at little or no cost to themselves. Typically such litigants have time on their hands and no means of paying any [of the] costs of litigation – so they are entitled to remission of court fees and the prospect of an order for costs against them is no deterrent. In these circumstances there is a strong public interest in protecting the court system from abuse by imposing an additional restraint on their use of the court's resources. 59. It is important to note that a civil restraint order does not prohibit access to the courts. It merely requires a person who has repeatedly made wholly unmeritorious claims or applications to have any new claim or application which falls within the scope of the order reviewed by a judge at the outset to determine whether it should be permitted to proceed. The purpose of a civil restraint order is simply to protect the court's process from abuse, and not to shut out claims or applications which are properly [argued].”