Perry v F H Brundle & Ors
Decision date: 30 March 2017
Neutral citation: [2017] EWHC 678 (IPEC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This case concerns the grant of a two‑year general civil restraint order (GCRO) against Mr Perry after the expiry of an extended CRO (ECRO), following a pattern of repeated, wide‑ranging threats to issue further proceedings that the court found to be totally without merit. The IPEC held it had jurisdiction to grant a GCRO and concluded, on the material before it, that an ECRO would not be sufficient because there was a real risk Mr Perry would persist in issuing meritless claims; a GCRO was imposed from 27 March 2017.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: medium
A GCRO is appropriate where a litigant persists in issuing or threatening to issue claims or applications that are totally without merit and where an ECRO would not adequately prevent likely future abusive litigation beyond the original proceedings; in deciding this the court may consider the litigant’s prior conduct, including existing strike‑out orders, prior ECROs and repetitive correspondence indicating intent to litigate.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The judgment indicates that a GCRO operates as a permission filter rather than an absolute bar and should not significantly prevent a litigant from bringing genuinely arguable claims; permission filters are a recognised means to protect court resources and other parties from unfounded claims while preserving access to court for meritorious cases.