Thackray & Anor v Wise [2021] EWHC 2059 (Ch) (22 July 2021)

Mr Wise's applications are totally without merit both substantively and procedurally, having been previously determined and dismissed; an extended civil restraint order is necessary due to persistent vexatious litigation.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2021] EWHC 2059 (Ch)
Parties: Claimant: Mr Wilfred Thackray; Claimant: Mrs Rita Thackray; Defendant: Mr Kenneth Wise
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 22 July 2021
Procedural Posture: High Court Civil Application / Judgment on Renewed Application and Civil Restraint Order
Outcome: Applications dismissed as totally without merit; extended civil restraint order imposed; permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics: Charging Orders, Civil Restraint Orders, Boundary Disputes, Costs, Enforcement of Judgments

Civil Procedure Property Law Charging Orders Civil Restraint Orders Boundary Disputes Costs Enforcement of Judgments

Source-derived case record

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6

Parties

Mr Wilfred Thackray

Claimant

Mrs Rita Thackray

Claimant

Mr Kenneth Wise

Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Application / Judgment on Renewed Application and Civil Restraint Order

Legal Issues

1 Whether Mr Wise's applications to set aside charging orders and orders for sale are totally without merit
2 Whether an extended civil restraint order should be imposed against Mr Wise

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed as totally without merit; extended civil restraint order imposed; permission to appeal refused.

Orders

Applications of 8 April and 5 May 2021 dismissed and certified as totally without merit.
Extended civil restraint order imposed against Mr Wise for the maximum permitted period.

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.