Svetlana Prokhorova v Paula Pfister & Ors

Svetlana Prokhorova v Paula Pfister & Ors

The claimant's applications were struck out for failure to comply with the requirements of the extended civil restraint order, including proper service and procedure. 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.

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
19 June 2025
Procedural Posture
Application / Judgment on Application to Vary/set Aside Previous Orders, Relief From Sanctions, and Extension of Time
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 5 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 / Judgment on Application to Vary/set Aside Previous Orders, Relief From Sanctions, and Extension of Time

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 granted

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's applications were struck out for failure to comply with the requirements of the extended civil restraint order, including proper service and procedure. 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
  • Substitute Mr Justice Lavender's name for Murray J in the CRO