Philcox v Wilson & Anor

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant's daughter was formerly employed by Company A, which provides High Court Enforcement Officers ("HCEOs") services. Company A employed the First Respondent and formerly employed the Second Respondent. In March 2014, the Applicant's daughter was summarily dismissed by Company A and brought unfair dismissal proceedings against it, with the Applicant acting as her advocate. These proceedings were dismissed at all levels including the Court of Appeal. The Applicant also represented a colleague of his daughter, whose claim was similarly dismissed.

During these proceedings, the Applicant made serious allegations against Company A, including sexual discrimination and dishonest business practices, none of which were accepted by the tribunals or courts. After these proceedings concluded, the Applicant made multiple complaints about Company A and the Respondents to various authorities, most of which were not upheld, except for a finding by the Information Commissioner's Office regarding a potential data protection infringement.

The Applicant initiated two private prosecutions against the Respondents, both of which were taken over and discontinued by the Crown Prosecution Service due to evidential deficiencies or public interest considerations.

On 27 March 2017, the Applicant applied for an order to terminate the Respondents' authorisation as HCEOs under the High Court Enforcement Officers Regulations 2004, making various allegations of fraud, misconduct, and regulatory breaches. Senior Master Fontaine struck out these proceedings on 5 June 2018 as an abuse of process and/or for lacking reasonable grounds, concluding the Applicant's motivation was a vendetta rather than public interest and that the proceedings were wholly without merit.

The Applicant sought to set aside or stay the strike-out order and for permission to appeal, but these applications were dismissed by Senior Master Fontaine on 4 July 2018 as totally without merit. The Applicant renewed the application for permission to appeal, which was refused by this court on 3 October 2018, again on grounds of abuse of process and lack of merit.

The Respondents now seek an Extended Civil Restraint Order ("ECRO") against the Applicant, citing a pattern of vexatious litigation and ongoing attempts to pursue the Respondents despite repeated judicial findings against him. The Applicant denies intention to bring further proceedings and disputes the necessity and motivation for such an order.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Applicant has persistently issued claims or made applications which are totally without merit, justifying the imposition of a civil restraint order.
2. Whether, on an objective assessment, the Applicant poses a risk of continuing to abuse the court's process by issuing further unmeritorious claims or applications if unrestrained.
3. What form of civil restraint order, if any, is just and proportionate to address the risk posed by the Applicant.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondents' Arguments

• The Applicant is pursuing a personal vendetta against the Respondents, motivated by grievance over his daughter's dismissal from Company A.
• The Applicant has demonstrated a persistent pattern of unmeritorious and vexatious litigation, including making repeated allegations already dismissed by courts and tribunals.
• The Applicant's conduct after the court's refusal of permission to appeal, including sending letters to members of the High Court Enforcement Officers Association repeating rejected allegations, shows he is unlikely to desist.
• A limited civil restraint order would be insufficient; an Extended Civil Restraint Order ("ECRO") is necessary to protect the administration of justice from further abuse.

Applicant's Arguments

• The Applicant denies any intention to initiate further civil proceedings against the Respondents and disputes the need for any civil restraint order.
• The Applicant contends that the Respondents seek the ECRO not to prevent unmeritorious claims but to discredit him, including allegations of fraud against the Respondents' solicitors.
• The Applicant criticises the Respondents for delay in seeking strike-out and civil restraint orders.
• The Applicant requests the court to adjourn consideration of the civil restraint order pending responses from the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office and the Ministry of Justice to his complaints.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first assessed whether the threshold for making an Extended Civil Restraint Order ("ECRO") was met, requiring evidence of persistent issuance of claims or applications totally without merit. It found that multiple orders, including the strike-out order dated 5 June 2018, the refusal of permission to appeal on 4 July 2018, and the refusal of renewed permission to appeal on 3 October 2018, all expressly or impliedly recorded that the Applicant's claims were totally without merit. The court accepted that a renewed application counts as an additional totally without merit claim, thus satisfying the requirement of at least three such claims or applications.

The court then considered the Applicant's broader litigation history, involving multiple prior cases against various public bodies and individuals, where the Applicant repeatedly made unsubstantiated allegations of fraud and misconduct. These cases demonstrated a pattern of vexatious litigation, persistence in making unmeritorious claims, and refusal to accept adverse findings.

In assessing the risk of future abuse of the court process, the court found that the Applicant poses a clear and obvious risk of continuing to issue further unmeritorious claims or applications if unrestrained. This conclusion was supported by the Applicant's recent conduct, including sending letters repeating rejected allegations to third parties despite judicial rulings.

The court acknowledged the Applicant's stated intention not to bring further proceedings but found this insufficient given the evidence of ongoing attempts to pursue the Respondents by other means and the history of persistence. The court also considered the Applicant's complaints to judicial and governmental bodies but found these did not mitigate the risk.

Balancing the need to protect the administration of justice with the Applicant's rights, the court determined that a limited civil restraint order would be inadequate given the wide-ranging and continuing nature of the Applicant's allegations and conduct. Therefore, an ECRO was justified and proportionate.

Holding and Implications

The court ORDERED that an Extended Civil Restraint Order ("ECRO") be made against the Applicant. The order restrains the Applicant from issuing claims or making applications in the High Court or any County Court concerning any matter involving, relating to, touching upon, or leading to the proceedings in which this order is made without first obtaining the permission of a judge identified in the order. This restriction is to last for a period of two years from the date of the order.

The direct effect of this decision is to prevent the Applicant from pursuing further unmeritorious litigation related to these matters without prior judicial permission, thereby protecting the court system from abuse. The court did not establish any new precedent but applied established principles to the facts of this case to safeguard judicial resources and the administration of justice.