Civil Restraint Orders: Practice & Procedure

This Legal Update looks at the Isle of Man High Court’s powers to deal with litigants whose repeated claims or applications are found to be “totally without merit”.

Glossary

First – some (printable) acronymns:

• CRO: civil restraint order
• ECRO: extended civil restraint order
• GCRO: general civil restraint order
• LCRO: limited civil restraint order
• TWM: totally without merit

Claims or applications which are “TWM”

Under Rule 2.4(7):

“If the court on its own initiative strikes out a statement of case or dismisses an application (including an application for permission to appeal) and it considers that the claim or application is [TWM] —

(a) the court’s order shall record that fact; and

(b) the court shall at the same time consider whether it is appropriate to make a [CRO]”.

Similarly, under Rule 7.14:

“If the court dismisses an application (including an application for permission to appeal) and it considers that the application is [TWM] —

(a) the court’s order must record that fact; and

(b) the court must at the same time consider whether it is appropriate to make a [CRO]”.

So, what amounts to a claim or application which is “totally without merit”?

In Wasif v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 82, the Court of Appeal cited (at § 12) Maurice Kay LJ in R (Grace) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 1191, [2014] 1 WLR 3432): “the purpose of ‘[TWM]’ is to enable the court to root out claims which are bound to fail”.

Grace was cited by Edward Peperall QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, in Coghlan v Chief Constable of Cheshire Police [2018] EWHC 34 (QB). He held (at § 114) (citing §§ 15-17 of Wasif):

“It might be thought that where a case is struck out for failing to disclose reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, the court would necessarily find it to be [TWM]. Judges should, however, be careful not to label an unsuccessful but arguable claim as being [TWM]”.

What are the Isle of Man Court’s CRO options?

In Alder & others v HSBC Bank PLC & others (ORD 23/0029) (12.04.24) – where an ECRO was granted for 2 years – Deemster Needham summarised the options open to the Court (at § 3):

“The 2009 Rules provide for three forms of [CRO]: (a) a limited civil restraint order (“LCRO”) (rule 2.55) which restrains the subject from issuing applications in the proceedings in hand without permission of the judge usually for the duration of the proceedings; (b) an extended civil restraint order (ECRO) (rule 2.56) which restrains the subject from issuing claims or making applications in any court concerning any matter relating to proceedings in which the order is made without permission of the judge for a period of up to 2 years; and, (c) a general civil restraint order (GCRO) (rule 2.57) which prevents the subject from issuing any proceedings against any defendant in the Isle of Man or making any application in any court without permission of the judge”.

Isle of Man case-law dealing with CRO’s – a summary overview

The Isle of Man Court has considered CRO’s on various occasions, including:

• Keddie v Spengler (CP 2004/87) (21.03.05) (ECRO granted, with penal notice – albeit prior to the 2009 Rules)
• Petition of Holmes (CP 2008/84) (20.01.09) (no CRO made)
• Holmes v The Queen (the Crown not Her Majesty herself) (18.07.12) (proposal to grant GCRO)
• Holmes v The Queen (the Crown not Her Majesty herself) (23.10.12) (GCRO granted) (upheld on appeal: (2DS) (2012/40))
• Wildman & others v Fletcher (SUM 2011/0012) (20.11.12) (GCRO granted)
• Kelly v DEC & others (ORD 2011/85) (30.07.13) (proposal to make GCRO)
• Adenaike v DHA & another (2DS 2017/31) (29.05.18) (ECRO granted for 2 years)
• Christian v DOI (SCP 2018/138) (30.07.18) (no CRO made)
• Christian v DOI (2DS 2019/13) (06.09.19) (no CRO made)
• Christian v DoE (SCP 2019/1060) (21.12.20) (no CRO made)
• Preynor Foundation v Megson (SUM 2019/124) (18.02.21) (no CRO made)
• Megson v Preynor Foundation (SUM 21/31) (21.04.21) (no CRO made)
• Alder & others v HSBC Bank PLC & others (ORD 23/0029) (12.04.24) (ECRO granted for 2 years)
• Megson v King William’s College & others (CHP 25/0040 and CHP 25/0041; CHP 25/0042; CHP 25/0055) (06.08.25) (GCRO granted)
• Wilmot & another v Lloyds International & another (2DS 2026/04) (26.06.26) (ECRO granted for 2 years)

Whilst vexatiousness is not, strictly, a required criterion (see below), the following are examples of the types of issues or conduct with which the Court has dealt:

“… appalling nature of the correspondence… sent to numerous individuals (particularly court officials) and bodies…  It is wholly unacceptable” (Petition of Holmes (CP 2008/84) (20.01.09)) (Deemster Corlett at § 33)

“24. … commences many claims… I know of nineteen cases and Mr. Swift leads me to believe there are more…

25. … All of the claims which I struck out are without merit and… an abuse of process. … persists in issuing claims which are [TWM]…

27. … activities and actions are proving a drain on the resources of the Courts in dealing with all the claims he makes without merit” (Wildman & others v Fletcher (SUM 2011/0012) (20.11.12)) (Acting Deemster Roberts at §§ 24-27)

“… has wasted an enormous amount of court administration and judge time in dealing with her various wholly unmeritorious claims. … has attempted to start yet more claims against various people in what is rightly called a scattergun approach” (Megson v King William’s College & others(CHP 25/0040 and CHP 25/0041; CHP 25/0042; CHP 25/0055) (06.08.25)) (Deemster Corlett at § 4)

“… individually and collectively demonstrated persistent abusive behaviour in this litigation” (Wilmot & another v Lloyds International & another (2DS 2026/04) (26.06.26)) (Judge of Appeal Cross KC at § 59)

LCRO’s: 2 strikes and you’re (maybe) out

Under Rule 2.55(1), a LCRO may be made: “where a party has made 2 or more applications which are [TWM]”.

The subject of a LCRO may apply to vary or discharge it with permission of the judge (Rule 2.55(2)(b)); and may only appeal it with PTA (Rule 2.55(2)(c)) (and repeated PTA applications may be restrained, by a Deemster, under Rule 2.55(4)).

A claim or application made in breach of a LCRO is automatically struck out: (Rule 2.55(3)).

It is perhaps notable that, where CRO’s have been made in the Isle of Man, they have tended to be ECRO’s or GCRO’s – ie. the more serious types of CRO.

ECRO’s: 3 strikes and you’re (again, maybe) out

Under Rule 2.56(1), an ECRO may be made: “where a party has persistently issued claims or made applications which are [TWM]”.

The subject of an ECRO may likewise apply to vary or discharge it with permission of the judge (Rule 2.56(2)(b)); and may only appeal it with PTA (Rule 2.56(2)(c)) (and repeated PTA applications may be restrained, by a Deemster or the Judge of Appeal, under Rule 2.56(4)).

A claim or application made in breach of an ECRO is automatically struck out: (Rule 2.56(3)).

In Alder & others v HSBC Bank PLC & others (ORD 23/0029) (12.04.24), Deemster Needham applied the test set out by the Appeal Division in Adenaike v DHA & another (2DS 2017/31) (29.05.18):

“29. … (1) it is necessary for the Respondents to establish that [the potential recipient of an [ECRO]] has made at least three claims or applications which are totally without merit to demonstrate ‘persistence’ in an irrational refusal to take “no” for an answer;

(2) the lack of a previous limited [CRO] is a relevant factor, but it is not a prerequisite (contrast the position of a [GCRO] which requires a previous ECRO: Rule 2.57(1));

(3) even where court orders do not record that an application was ‘[TWM]’, if a later court is convinced that the earlier application must have been treated as being ‘[TWM]’ then that is sufficient: R (on the application of Kumar) v Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs [2007] 1 WLR 536 per Brooke LJ at [67] (with whom Dyson and Lloyd LJJ agreed). However, it is not for this court to substitute its own views for those of the judge dealing with the earlier application: [19], [22], [30], [70] and [79];

(4) it is no longer necessary to establish ‘vexatiousness’ or its modern equivalent: Kumar at [69];

(5) the most important factor is the “threat level” of continued issue of wholly unmeritorious claims or applications:…;

(6) the court has a discretion even if the relevant preconditions are met, to be exercised in a proportionate manner…; and

(7) if an ECRO is to be made, for what period and on what terms should it be ordered?”.

An ECRO was made, more recently, by Judge of Appeal Cross KC in Wilmot & another v Lloyds International & another (2DS 2026/04) (26.06.26).

GCRO’s (wider ban for up to 2 years)

Under Rule 2.57(1), a GCRO – the most draconian of the CRO’s – may be made: “where the party against whom the order is made persists in issuing claims or making applications which are [TWM], in circumstances where an [ECRO] would not be sufficient or appropriate”.

To recap, the GCRO applies not just to related proceedings (as is the case for an ECRO) but to: “any proceedings”.

The maximum duration of a GCRO is 2 years (Rule 2.57(10)(a)).

The subject of a GCRO may likewise apply to vary or discharge it with permission of the judge (Rule 2.57(2)(b)); and may only appeal it with PTA (Rule 2.57(2)(c)) (and, again, repeated PTA applications may be restrained, by a Deemster or the Judge of Appeal, under Rule 2.57(4)).

A claim or application made in breach of an GCRO is automatically struck out: (Rule 2.57(3)).

In Megson v King William’s College & others (CHP 25/0040 and CHP 25/0041; CHP 25/0042; CHP 25/0055) (06.08.25), Deemster Corlett held (at §§ 4-5):

“4… this is a very clear example of the sort of case for which the [CRO] mechanism was designed. Mrs Megson has wasted an enormous amount of court administration and judge time in dealing with her various wholly unmeritorious claims. … [S]he has attempted to start yet more claims against various people in what is rightly called a scattergun approach. This type of matter falls squarely within the type of case which Deemster Roberts was dealing with in [Wildman & others v Fletcher (SUM 2011/0012) (20.11.12)] and also the case of Howell v Evans [2020] EWHC 2729 (QB)… which again sets out those cases where a [LCRO] would be insufficient.

5. It is clear that neither a [LCRO] nor an [ECRO] would be sufficient in this case. This is a very clear case where a [GCRO] is necessary restraining Mrs Megson from issuing any claim or making any application in the High Court… . The period for which such a [CRO] can be made is limited by the Rules of the High Court and the maximum period allowed is 2 years. That is certainly wholly justified in this case. … Mrs Megson is going to be likely to be in custody for at least another 2 years and judging by previous behaviour she is likely to attempt to start all sorts of other claims during that period if she is not restrained from doing so…”.

Other case management tools

Other case management tools available to the Court to deal with serial litigants of claims or applications which are found to be TWM include:

• costs orders; and
• contempt, if the relevant order is endorsed with a penal notice, pursuant to Rule 10.14(1) (as to which see Coren Law, Isle of Man Civil Contempt – Practice & Procedure). See also Carrick v Kingston upon Hull City Council [2018] EWHC 2861 (Ch), where Barling J held (at § 17):

“… there is no good reason why the normal consequences of disobeying any order of the court – viz. that if the breach is established to the criminal standard of proof, the court is able to consider whether the case is an appropriate one in which to commit for contempt and to impose a penalty, whether by imprisonment, a fine or seizure of assets – should not apply. … [I]t would be an unusual case where such an application was made or granted, but I can see no good reason why the order should be treated any differently from other orders of the court”. 

Note for practitioners: The Isle of Man High Court has various tools to deal with litigants whose claims or applications are found to be TWM (Totally Without Merit). These include: Limited, Extended and General Civil Restraint Orders; costs orders; and contempt (if the order is endorsed with a penal notice).

Disclaimer: professional advice should be sought before applying any information in a given case.

For advice on Isle of Man civil procedure, contact Coren Law.

See other Coren Law Legal Updates on civil procedure.

See also Coren Law’s Isle of Man civil procedure portal: Click On | Coren Law.