Prokhorova v Pfister & Ors [2025] EWHC 1528 (KB) (21 May 2025)

Prokhorova v Pfister & Ors [2025] EWHC 1528 (KB) (21 May 2025)

The claimant's applications were struck out automatically for failure to comply with the civil restraint order and procedural rules. The CRO was properly classified as an extended civil restraint order, justified by the claimant's persistent meritless applications. No relief from sanctions or extension of time was warranted.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 1528 (KB)
Parties
Applicant/claimant: Svetlana Prokhorova; Respondent/defendant: Paula Pfister; Respondent/defendant: Firstport Property Services No 5 Limited (sued as Firstport Bespoke Management Limited); Respondent/defendant: Cherwin Nooitmeer
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Application in Appeal Proceedings / Post Judgment Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Civil Restraint Orders, Relief From Sanctions, Extension of Time, Service of Documents
Civil Procedure Civil Restraint Orders Relief From Sanctions Extension of Time Service of Documents

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Svetlana Prokhorova

Applicant/claimant

Paula Pfister

Respondent/defendant

Firstport Property Services No 5 Limited (sued as Firstport Bespoke Management Limited)

Respondent/defendant

Cherwin Nooitmeer

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Application in Appeal Proceedings / Post Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order dated 9 April 2025 should be varied or set aside under CPR 3.1(7)
  2. 2 Whether relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9 should be granted
  3. 3 Whether an extension of time for service of the application notice should be allowed

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's applications were struck out automatically for failure to comply with the civil restraint order and procedural rules. The CRO was properly classified as an extended civil restraint order, justified by the claimant's persistent meritless applications. No relief from sanctions or extension of time was warranted.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • CRO amended to clarify it is an extended civil restraint order
  • Judge's name substituted for Murray J in CRO