Power to make a Ovil Restraint Order formed part of a civil court's case management powers, which were just as readily available to a judge in the Administrative Court as they were to a judge in private law litigation or a judge in the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal allowed the claimant's appeal against a general civil restraint order.
Mr Kumar had commenced seven actions, in the District Registry of the High Court at Stoke-on-Trent, the Administrative Court, the Queen's Bench Division, and the District Registry of the High Court at Leicester, which included claims arising out of his immigration status and the manner in which that had been dealt with by the authorities' and complaints about the way in which those claims had been handled.
The present action was an application for judicial review challenging decisions made in the District Registry at Leicester. By his acknowledgment of service, the Secretary of State observed that since the decisions being challenged had been made in the High Court, the Administrative Court had no jurisdiction to hear the application, and added that on the basis of the instant claim and previous claims by Mr Kumar, he would be applying for an extended civil restraint order (CRO) at the oral permission hearing.
At the hearing in November 2004, counsel for the Secretary of State applied for a general or an extended CRO, without drawing the judge's attention either to the fact that the CRO procedure had already been codified in the Civil Procedure Rules for more than a month, or to the possibility that a general CRO could not be made until after an extended CRO had been tried and had failed. No ex- tended CRO had been made against Mr Kumar at that date.
The judge refused his application for permission, stating that it had no merit whatsoever. …