Supperstone v Hurst & Anor [2009] EWHC 1271 (Ch) (08 June 2009)

Supperstone v Hurst & Anor [2009] EWHC 1271 (Ch) (08 June 2009)

Mr and Mrs Hurst have persistently issued meritless and vexatious claims and applications in multiple sets of proceedings relating to the bankruptcy, justifying the making of an ECRO against both. The risk of further unmeritorious proceedings remains, and the protection of the Trustee and associated parties is necessary to enable closure of the estate. The ECRO jurisdiction does not extend to restraining mere communication.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 1271 (Ch)
Parties
Applicant: Antony Peter Supperstone; First Respondent: Robert Alfred Hurst; Second Respondent: Ann Stephanie Hurst
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Extended Civil Restraint Order (ecro) in Bankruptcy Proceedings / Judgment on Application
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
Bankruptcy, Civil Restraint Orders, Abuse of Process, Vexatious Litigation
Insolvency Civil Procedure Bankruptcy Civil Restraint Orders Abuse of Process Vexatious Litigation

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Antony Peter Supperstone

Applicant

Robert Alfred Hurst

First Respondent

Ann Stephanie Hurst

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extended Civil Restraint Order (ecro) in Bankruptcy Proceedings / Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr and Mrs Hurst have persistently issued claims or made applications which are totally without merit justifying an ECRO
  2. 2 Whether the ECRO should also restrain communications with the Trustee and associated parties

Ratio Decidendi

Mr and Mrs Hurst have persistently issued meritless and vexatious claims and applications in multiple sets of proceedings relating to the bankruptcy, justifying the making of an ECRO against both. The risk of further unmeritorious proceedings remains, and the protection of the Trustee and associated parties is necessary to enable closure of the estate. The ECRO jurisdiction does not extend to restraining mere communication.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • An Extended Civil Restraint Order (ECRO) is to be issued against both Mr Hurst and Mrs Hurst restraining them from issuing claims or making applications relating to the bankruptcy or the conduct of the Trustee without permission of a judge of the Chancery Division.
  • The request to restrain communications with the Trustee, BDO, and Taylor Wessing is refused.