H’s claim of identity fraud struck out and general CRO made
Summary: Here we see Mostyn J making a general civil restraint order after the husband (“H”) issued County Court claims, despite the existence of an extended civil restraint order. In earlier financial remedy proceedings, Mostyn J had ordered the transfer to the wife (“W”) of a property subject to a mortgage with Bank of Scotland Plc and made an extended civil restraint order (“CRO”) because of H’s extreme litigation misconduct.
Despite the CRO, H issued claims in separate county courts against the bank for disclosing his mortgage details and against the Chief Land Registrar for registering a restriction against the property. He claimed there had been identity fraud, that he was not the person involved in the divorce proceedings and he had never been married to W. Both the bank and the Chief Land Registrar applied to strike out H’s claims, having discovered the existence of the CRO.
Held: In granting the applications, Mostyn J made a general CRO lasting two years in both the civil and family proceedings. An indefinite CRO can be made on application by the Attorney General and Mostyn J directed that a copy of his judgment be forwarded to the Attorney General to consider such an application, given the extreme facts.
Most noteworthy was Mostyn J’s call for an up-to-date, fully accessible register of all CROs to be put in place, with a flagging system so that if an application is made in breach of a CRO, it is automatically dismissed.