Factual and Procedural Background
This decision concerns multiple applications for permission to appeal made by the father regarding proceedings involving his two daughters, one of whom was subject to a care order until she reached adulthood, and the other living with her mother. The father's litigation history spans private and public law family court proceedings beginning in 2013, following concerns about the elder daughter's behaviour and subsequent voluntary care placement. The father has a history of convictions, including assault and child abduction. The family court has made various orders relating to the children’s living arrangements and contact, including care orders and prohibited steps orders preventing the father from removing the younger daughter from the jurisdiction.
The father has persistently pursued litigation concerning contact and residence arrangements with his daughters, often making applications deemed to be without merit. The court has dealt with seven applications for permission to appeal together, all of which were determined to be totally without merit. The father’s conduct in litigation appears driven by a desire to punish the mother and a conviction in his own correctness, accompanied by serious but unsubstantiated allegations against the mother, social workers, and the judges involved.
Several orders were made by HHJ Tolson QC between 2016 and 2018, dismissing the father’s applications on grounds including lack of merit, procedural issues, and the welfare of the children. The father’s repeated applications, many filed out of time and containing no proper grounds of appeal, were struck out or refused. The court also considered social work reports indicating the younger daughter’s fear of her father and reluctance to have contact with him.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the father’s applications for permission to appeal met the threshold for granting permission under Family Procedure Rules (FPR) rule 30.3(7), specifically whether there was a real prospect of success or any other compelling reason to hear the appeals.
- Whether the father's repeated applications and appeals were totally without merit, justifying certification as such under FPR rule 30.3(5A).
- Whether an extended civil restraint order should be imposed on the father to prevent abuse of the court’s process by making repeated unmeritorious applications related to these proceedings.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Re F (Children) [2016] EWCA Civ 546 |
Approach of appellate court to decisions of the lower court; judicial task to enable parties to understand outcomes and provide sufficient detail for appellate review. |
Court adopted the principle that appellate courts should avoid narrow textual analysis and focus on substance over semantics in reviewing the father’s appeals. |
| Piglowska v Piglowski [1999] 1 WLR 1360 |
Appellate courts should resist substituting their discretion for that of the trial judge absent clear error. |
Court applied this principle in refusing permission to appeal, emphasizing respect for the trial judge’s discretion and decisions. |
| Wasif v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 82 |
Principles applicable to certification of applications as totally without merit and refusal of permission to appeal. |
Court relied on Wasif to certify the father’s applications as totally without merit and to refuse permission to appeal without a hearing. |
| Re H (Children) [2015] EWCA Civ 583 |
Consideration of underlying merits when deciding whether to grant relief for failure to comply with procedural rules. |
Court considered this precedent when refusing to extend time for late appeals and striking out applications. |
| Nowak v The Nursing and Midwifery Council [2013] EWHC 1932 (QB) |
Rationale for civil restraint orders to protect court resources from abuse by litigants making meritless claims. |
Court cited this case to justify imposing an extended civil restraint order on the father to prevent further unmeritorious applications. |
| Bhamjee v Fosdick [2004] 1 WLR 88 |
Explanation of the purpose and rationale of civil restraint orders. |
Used to support the court’s reasoning on the public interest in protecting court resources from abusive litigants. |
| The Queen on the application of Ranbir Kumar v Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs [2006] EWCA Civ 990 |
Guidance on making civil restraint orders, including procedural fairness and notice requirements. |
Court referenced this authority when deciding to seek the father’s representations before making the civil restraint order. |
| Connah v Plymouth Hospitals Trust [2006] EWCA Civ 1616 |
Exceptional circumstances for making civil restraint orders without notice or hearing. |
Court acknowledged this precedent in considering procedural fairness in the context of the father’s complex litigation history. |
| D v H [2011] EWHC 3521 (Fam) |
Importance of judicial continuity in intractable private law children proceedings. |
Court relied on this to reject the father’s suggestion that the judge was biased or incapable of impartiality. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court considered each of the seven applications for permission to appeal individually and collectively, applying the test under FPR rule 30.3(7) requiring a real prospect of success or other compelling reasons to grant permission. The court found that none of the applications met this threshold, noting the father's repeated attempts to relitigate matters already decided and his failure to provide substantive grounds of appeal. Many applications were filed out of time without explanation, and the father’s allegations against the mother, social workers, and judges were unsubstantiated and unsupported by evidence.
The court emphasized the importance of judicial discretion and the appellate court’s role in reviewing decisions based on substance rather than technicalities or narrow textual analysis, referencing established case law. The father's conduct was described as obsessive and unbounded, with a pattern of making incoherent and prolix applications that consumed significant judicial and administrative resources.
Regarding procedural fairness, the court found that determination of applications on the papers was appropriate and proportionate, given the welfare issues and the overriding objective of the Rules. The absence of a transcript for paper determinations was held to be irrelevant to fairness. The court also rejected allegations of bias or improper motivation by the judge, affirming the importance of judicial continuity in family proceedings.
Given the persistent and unmeritorious nature of the father's applications, the court considered the imposition of a civil restraint order. After inviting and considering the father's representations, the court concluded that an extended civil restraint order was appropriate to protect the court’s resources and to prevent further abuse of the process. The order was tailored to restrain the father from making any further applications relating to or arising from these proceedings without prior permission from the court, for an initial period of two years.
The court also took into account the welfare of the children, noting the distress caused by the father's litigation conduct and the need to control the flow of applications to avoid further anxiety or harm to the mother and children.
Holding and Implications
The court REFUSED ALL APPLICATIONS FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL and certified each as totally without merit. It further IMPOSED AN EXTENDED CIVIL RESTRAINT ORDER on the father, preventing him from making any further applications relating to these proceedings without first obtaining the court’s permission. This order is to last for two years initially, with any permission applications to be made in writing to the judge identified in the order.
The direct effect is to curtail the father’s ability to initiate further unmeritorious litigation in relation to his children and the mother, thereby protecting court resources and the welfare of the children involved. No new legal precedent was established; rather, the decision applies established principles to manage persistent abuse of the family court process.