The High Court has taken a firm stance against frivolous litigation by granting an extended civil restraint order against businessman Derek Banner, who has persistently brought meritless proceedings against two law firms. Banner’s legal troubles began in Sweden, where he claimed that a television gameshow format he created was unlawfully replicated. After his allegations were dismissed at multiple levels, including by the Swedish Supreme Court, he transferred the intellectual property rights to his business and launched a similar claim in the High Court. This too was dismissed, prompting him to target his former solicitors, Fox Williams LLP and Wiggin LLP, as well as the solicitors representing the defendants.

In his pursuit of £55 million in damages, Banner alleged serious misconduct against the firms involved. However, the High Court ruled against him, emphasizing that his claims were completely devoid of merit. The judgment in the case of Banner Universal Motion Pictures Limited v Wiggin LLP & Anor highlighted Banner's refusal to acknowledge the finality of the judicial decisions rendered against him. His continued correspondence with the court only served to confirm his obstinacy, as he attempted to reopen his appeal despite being informed that his legal avenues were exhausted.

Mr Justice Mellor, overseeing the case, underscored the significance of the allegations Banner made, characterising them as “totally without merit”. The judge expressed concern over Banner's repeated attempts to challenge the court’s decisions, indicating a troubling pattern of abuse towards the judicial process. In light of these considerations, the extended civil restraint order was deemed necessary to prevent further frivolous claims.

This is not an isolated case; the courts have increasingly resorted to issuing civil restraint orders to mitigate similar abuses. Recently, a struck-off solicitor, Farid El Diwany, was subjected to a three-year General Civil Restraint Order. The Court of Appeal found that El Diwany had consistently issued meritless claims against the Solicitors Regulation Authority and others, a behaviour parallel to that of Banner. Such orders serve to protect the integrity of the legal system, ensuring that it is not overwhelmed by unmeritorious litigations that seek to exploit judicial resources.

Similarly, the High Court has also imposed civil restraint orders on individuals like barrister Tariq Rehman, who relentlessly challenged disciplinary findings against him. Justice Hickinbottom noted Rehman’s pattern of meritless claims and appeals and the overarching theme of a perceived conspiracy against him. This recurring issue of persistent litigants highlights a broader concern about the misuse of the courts to settle personal grievances rather than legitimate legal disputes.

In the context of these developments, the introduction of civil restraint orders has become a vital tool for courts to curtail unwarranted litigation. These court orders can vary in scope, with types including Limited Civil Restraint Orders (LCRO), Extended Civil Restraint Orders (ECRO), and General Civil Restraint Orders (GCRO), each designed to adapt to the severity and frequency of the litigant's actions. Courts have the authority to impose these defensive mechanisms when it is evident that an individual is abusing the court process.

The legal community continues to grapple with the ramifications of such persistent, meritless claims. The judicial system’s response reflects a commitment to uphold judicial efficacy and integrity, safeguarding against those who would misuse access to the courts to perpetuate their grievances. As cases like that of Derek Banner illustrate, the courts are prepared to take decisive action to protect both their resources and the wider public from the burden of baseless legal actions.

Reference Map:

Source: Noah Wire Services