Galbraith-Marten v De Renee (Extension of Extended Civil Restraint Order)

Factual and Procedural Background

This judgment concerns two applications within long-running financial remedy proceedings between the parties referred to herein as Plaintiff and Defendant. The first application, dated 24 September 2024, is by Defendant seeking a further extension of an Extended Civil Restraint Order ("ECRO") against Plaintiff pursuant to rule 4.8 Family Procedure Rules 2010 ("FPR 2010") and its associated Practice Direction (PD4B). The second application, dated 10 March 2025, is by Plaintiff seeking financial or maintenance orders against Defendant, referencing alleged non-disclosure by Defendant of annual tax returns for the last two years, impacting child maintenance calculations. Plaintiff’s oral submissions clarified that the application sought broad financial disclosure to consider potential further applications under Part III Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 ("MFPA 1984") and/or variation of child maintenance under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 ("CA 1989").

Additionally, Defendant made an oral application under rule 29.1 FPR 2010 for disclosure of Plaintiff's home address and contact details, which is addressed separately.

The parties have a lengthy litigation history in England and Australia concerning financial matters dating back to 2009, including multiple applications by Plaintiff for relief under Schedule 1 CA 1989 and Part III MFPA 1984, many of which have been found to be abuses of process or unmeritorious. Plaintiff has been subject to an ECRO since October 2019, initially imposed by the court’s own motion and extended twice, most recently expiring in October 2024.

Key prior orders include a substantive financial order made in December 2022 requiring Defendant to provide annual tax returns for child maintenance calculations, and a varied order in December 2023 setting the level of periodical payments with automatic future adjustments based on Defendant’s disclosed income.

Throughout the proceedings, Plaintiff has repeatedly alleged that Defendant has failed to provide full financial disclosure and has manipulated financial information to her detriment and that of the child. Defendant contends Plaintiff’s conduct demonstrates persistent vexatious litigation aimed at re-opening concluded matters.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether it is appropriate to extend the existing Extended Civil Restraint Order against Plaintiff for a further two years under rule 4.8 FPR 2010 and PD4B.
2. Whether Plaintiff’s application for financial/maintenance orders and related disclosure falls within the scope of the ECRO and should be permitted.
3. Whether Defendant has complied with the court’s previous orders regarding financial disclosure, specifically provision of tax returns for child maintenance computation.
4. Whether Defendant’s application for disclosure of Plaintiff’s home address and contact details under rule 29.1 FPR 2010 should be granted.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant's Arguments

• Plaintiff has persistently pursued unmeritorious and vexatious litigation, including multiple failed applications and findings of abuse of process.
• Plaintiff’s recent applications, including the March 2025 financial disclosure request, are further evidence of ongoing vexatious conduct aimed at re-opening settled matters.
• The March 2025 application by Plaintiff is caught by the ECRO and requires permission, which has not been sought.
• Defendant has complied with the court’s orders by providing relevant financial information to enable child maintenance calculations, including emails with accounts and tax computations.
• Defendant opposes disclosure of Plaintiff’s home address, denying abuse allegations and noting no demonstrated misuse of such information, while accepting Plaintiff’s email address should be disclosed.

Plaintiff's Arguments

• Plaintiff seeks financial/maintenance orders alleging Defendant’s contempt of court by failing to provide tax returns as ordered.
• She asserts the application falls outside the ECRO’s restrictions.
• Plaintiff maintains Defendant has failed to provide full and frank financial disclosure over many years, suppressing income to her detriment.
• She seeks wide-ranging financial disclosure to assess whether to pursue further applications under Part III MFPA 1984 and/or Schedule 1 CA 1989.
• Plaintiff expresses frustration and anger at the litigation history and describes the ECRO as punitive and degrading, asserting she has not behaved in a manner justifying its continuation.
• She alleges historic domestic abuse and ongoing fear of Defendant, arguing Defendant does not need to know her home address.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court considered the history of protracted and vexatious litigation between the parties, highlighting multiple failed applications by Plaintiff and prior findings of abuse of process. The ECRO was originally imposed to restrain Plaintiff from making unmeritorious applications without permission. The court noted that the sole criterion for extending an ECRO is "appropriateness" under PD4B FPR 2010, considering the conduct of Plaintiff since the last order and whether the extension is necessary to protect Defendant and court resources.

Given Plaintiff’s ongoing attempts to pursue further applications, including the recent March 2025 financial disclosure application which was made without permission and in breach of the ECRO, the court found that Plaintiff continues to display persistent vexatiousness. The court acknowledged the serious impact of an ECRO but emphasized it does not prevent access to justice for properly arguable claims, as permission processes remain available.

Regarding the March 2025 financial application, the court found it fell squarely within the ECRO’s scope and that Defendant had complied with disclosure obligations, negating enforcement or contempt issues. The application was dismissed as lacking proper basis and as a cynical attempt to circumvent the ECRO.

On Defendant’s application for disclosure of Plaintiff’s home address, the court balanced the absence of evidence of misuse or abuse against Plaintiff’s allegations of historic abuse. The court declined to order disclosure of the home address to avoid potential future vexatious proceedings but directed disclosure of Plaintiff’s email address. The court clarified that no findings were made on the abuse allegations.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final decision is as follows:

• The ECRO against Plaintiff is extended for a further two years, expiring on 14 April 2027.
• Plaintiff is restrained from making any applications related to these proceedings in specified courts without first obtaining permission from the designated judge.
• Any applications by Plaintiff for permission must be served on Defendant with an opportunity to respond, and applications may be determined without a hearing.
• If Plaintiff repeatedly makes totally without merit applications for permission, the court may impose final dismissal with no right of appeal unless permission to appeal is granted.
• Plaintiff’s application dated 10 March 2025 for financial/maintenance orders is dismissed.
• Plaintiff’s home address shall not be disclosed to Defendant, but Plaintiff’s email address must be disclosed.

The decision directly protects Defendant from further vexatious litigation and safeguards court resources. It maintains Plaintiff’s access to justice through a permission process but imposes significant restrictions due to the history of abuse of process. No new legal precedent is established; the ruling applies established principles regarding ECRO extensions and management of vexatious litigants.