- In brief: Civil restraint orders—how often is persistent? (CFC 26 Ltd v Brown Shipley)
- Original news:
- What are the practical implications of this decision?
- What was the case about?
- What issues did this case raise?
- What did the court decide on those issues, and why?
- To what extent is this decision helpful in clarifying the law in this area?
Dispute Resolution analysis: Julia Dias QC of 7 King’s Bench Walk considers the case of CFC 26 Ltd and another v Brown Shipley & Co Ltd and others. Newey J considered the different threshold requirements for an extended civil restraint order (ECRO) as compared with a limited civil restraint order (LCRO) under CPR 3.11 and CPR PD 3C. He concluded that a minimum of three wholly unmeritorious claims or applications are required before an ECRO can be made, but that it is not necessary for each of those claims/applications to have been brought in the name of the person against whom the order is being sought. It is sufficient if he or she is the ‘real’ party behind claims or applications which have nominally been brought by a third party.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial