Mortgage litigation

Litigant in person - vexatious applications - totally without merit - civil restraint orders

Summary

This is an extreme example of how a court trial manages a thoroughly vexatious litigant in person in mortgage litigation – with the added advantage of resorting to remote mode and hitting the mute button when things get a little out of hand.

Facts

Following default by M in repayment of his mortgage, the bank issued proceedings for possession which were defended on numerous grounds, including allegations of fraud against  the bank. By all accounts, it was a case management handful, with numerous applications, hearings, orders and appeals, including orders that M’s appeals were totally without merit, and an injunction restraining him from harassing and intimidating witnesses.

After a 4-day trial in the Central London County Court (in which there were further applications and orders) the court made an order for possession. Permission to appeal was refused by the High Court as totally without merit. The county court bailiff attending the warrant was assaulted and off work for several weeks. M’s subsequent application to “Strike out Order of Eviction and Restraining Order” was refused (the transcript of the hearing before Recorder Jourdan KC records numerous interruptions by M during the course of judgment). The court transferred the proceedings to the High Court for enforcement.

M subsequently applied to “set aside of repossession order” and for transfer to the Kings Bench Division on the grounds of national security, which latter application was dismissed as TWM.

Issues

How should the court trial manages a determinedly vexatious litigant in person.

Decision

(David Halpern KC sitting as a Judge of the High Court) The court dismissed M’s application to “set aside of repossession order” and made an Extended Civil Restraint Order against him for three years (reciting six findings of TWM, and taking into account his conduct), and recording that “the Bank is entitled to be protected against this crusade…and to prevent [M] from continuing to waste a disproportionate amount of judicial time”.

Comments

Those who practise in the field of mortgage litigation (indeed, property litigation generally) will be (increasingly) familiar with this pattern of conduct from litigants in person. The case is noted here, not so much for the substantive content of how the court manages and disposes of repeat applications which are totally without merit, but for the judge’s recording of the course of the hearing, which makes fairly ‘extreme’ reading.

All credit to the judge who trial managed this hearing with commendable skill and care. M’s fundamental problem was that he was unable to advance any of the substantive arguments he had raised about the bank’s fraud, or issues of national security, and when pressed on this, the judge was repeatedly interrupted, with tempers evidently flaring. The judge rose to allow ‘tempers to cool’ but when this did not work, the judge ordered M to leave the courtroom and called security to escort him out, but when he refused to leave, they had to call the police. Sensibly, the judge directed that the hearing would continue remotely, and on the following Monday M attended the remote hearing with 66 members of the public, one of whom described himself as “King Charles III”. The judge allowed M to address him, but ended up having to mute him after only 10 minutes.

Litigants who abide by the rules are entitled to be protected by a robust judiciary who will resort to appropriate case management/trial management powers, injunctions, committals and civil restraint orders. Litigants in person do not have carte blanche to do what they want.