Veluppillai v Chief Land Registrar and Others [2017] EWHC 1693 (Fam)

Facts:

  • W petitioned for divorce three times. On the first two occasions, H persuaded her to withdraw her petition.
  • Financial remedy proceedings were initiated and resulted in an order by Mostyn J dated 29 October 2015 (the “2015 Order”). The 2015 Order required the transfer of a property between H to W. The property was held in H’s sole name and it was subject to a mortgage in favour of the Bank of Scotland plc. A restriction was placed on the Register in relation to the property.
  • H assaulted W and W’s counsel in court during the financial remedy proceedings and he had been convicted of assault as a result.
  • Mostyn J granted an extended civil restraint order against H, with a term of two years.
  • H subsequently issued claims for compensation against the Bank of Scotland and the Chief Land Registrar, claiming that the order in the financial remedy proceedings had been brought about as a result of identity fraud, and that he had never been married to W and/or been a party to the financial remedies proceedings.
  • The Chief Land Registrar and the Bank applied to strike out the applications, and for a general civil restraint order to be made against H.

 

Held:

  • The claims were struck out; a general civil restraint order was made against H.
  • H’s claims against the Bank were nullities, having been made without the required permission from the judge identified in the extended civil restraint order. They were dismissed automatically.
  • In addition the claims were manifestly abusive because they amounted to an impermissible collateral attack on the 2015 Order, which was based on the valid marriage of H and W.
  • The extended civil restraint order had not been sufficient because it simply had not worked. It was accordingly appropriate to make a general civil restraint order.
  • The order would last for two years. There was a strong case for the order being made indefinitely. Because of the two-year limit imposed by paragraph 4.9(1) of PD 3C of the Family Procedure Rules, however, the judge thought that it would not be a proper exercise of his power to make such order pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction.

Stay Up To Date

Follow us on Linkedin to stay up to date with the latest news from 1 Hare Court.