It was appropriate to make an extended civil restraint order (ECRO) against an individual influenced by the “freeman of the land” ideology who made persistent applications which were wholly without merit.
In Ryan v LVR Capital Ltd (in administration) [2024] EWHC 1866 (Ch) the High Court considered applications to strike out the claimant’s three Part 7 claims and a fourth application for an ECRO.
The claimant was the director of the defendant company, which had various loans from MS Lending Group Ltd or associated companies secured on his home, Barnsdale House in Halifax, and 47 Church Street, Huddersfield. The claimant asserted that the lenders were obliged to accept promissory notes he sent and in correspondence referred to an “Omniversal Security Agreement”. Despite letters of demand sent by the lenders requiring repayment, the loans were not repaid.
Administrators were appointed and eventually became receivers of Barnsdale House and Church Street. An order for possession of Barnsdale House was obtained. The claimant was refused permission to appeal the possession order and applied to set it aside.
A High Court enforcement officer was unable to execute the warrant for possession (despite the attendance of two police officers) as four men prevented access. The claimant refused to accept the lawfulness of the writ of possession and cited magna carta. Notwithstanding the possession order, the claimant (on behalf of the Phil Ryan Trust) issued possession proceedings for Barnsdale House. He also served statutory demands in the sum of £24m on the lenders, the solicitors involved and the administrators’ company. An interim injunction was obtained to prevent him presenting winding up petitions. The claimant issued an application for contempt of court against the maker of the witness statement that supported the injunction application. This contempt application was dismissed as being totally without merit.
The claimant’s Part 7 applications (and indeed previous dealings) were influenced by the freeman of the land ideology. The court described this as a pseudo legal movement which holds that individuals are bound by statutes only to the extent that they have consented to them. There is also a belief that people can divide their legal identities. Proponents wrongly believe that they can avoid legal responsibilities by executing transactions and making statements which appear superficially to be based on legal principles but in fact have no basis in law. The court considered the three Part 7 claims before it and concluded that each should be struck out under CPR 3.4(2) and that each was totally without merit
Under paragraph 3.1 of CPR Practice Direction 3C, a judge of the High Court may make an ECRO “where a party has persistently issued claims or made applications which are totally without merit”. The threshold requirement of at least three applications totally without merit was met by the Part 7 applications struck out by the court and the contempt application. They were part of a wider picture which demonstrated that the claimant was aggrieved by the fact that the company was in administration, refused to accept the legitimacy of the administrators’ appointment or the lenders’ security and was determined to use and abuse legal procedures and the process of the court.
The court accepted that the claimant was inclined to disregard the jurisdiction of the court when it suited him but take advantage of it when he perceived it would further his interest costing the defendant company many thousands of pounds and wasting the court’s time and resources. The risk of further unmeritorious applications was very high and it was right for the court to exercise its discretion and make the ECRO order sought. However, there was no evidence that an ECRO would provide inadequate protection and so the wider general civil restraint order was not required.
Elizabeth Haggerty is a barrister
