Robert Hurst v Evelyn Green & Ors.

Robert Hurst v Evelyn Green & Ors.

Mr Hurst's renewed applications are a further attempt to relitigate matters already decided and are totally without merit. The payment relied upon is irrelevant to the grounds of the original summary judgment and does not support any of Mr Hurst's arguments. His conduct demonstrates a persistent abuse of process, justifying both the refusal of permission to make further applications and the extension of the ECRO.

Parties
Applicant: Mr Robert Hurst; Respondent: Mrs Evelyn Green; Respondent: Mr David Green; Respondent: Mr Ian Mablin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Insolvency / Civil Restraint Order / Renewed Application for Permission to Make a Series of Applications; Consideration of Extension of Extended Civil Restraint Order
Outcome
Permission refused; ECRO extended
Legal Topics
Extended Civil Restraint Orders, Abuse of Process, Bankruptcy Annulment, Summary Judgment, Vexatious Litigation
Insolvency Law Civil Procedure Extended Civil Restraint Orders Abuse of Process Bankruptcy Annulment Summary Judgment 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 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Robert Hurst

Applicant

Mrs Evelyn Green

Respondent

Mr David Green

Respondent

Mr Ian Mablin

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Insolvency / Civil Restraint Order / Renewed Application for Permission to Make a Series of Applications; Consideration of Extension of Extended Civil Restraint Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Hurst should be granted permission to make further applications to review, annul, or rescind prior orders and judgments
  2. 2 Whether the Extended Civil Restraint Order (ECRO) against Mr Hurst should be extended

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Hurst's renewed applications are a further attempt to relitigate matters already decided and are totally without merit. The payment relied upon is irrelevant to the grounds of the original summary judgment and does not support any of Mr Hurst's arguments. His conduct demonstrates a persistent abuse of process, justifying both the refusal of permission to make further applications and the extension of the ECRO.

Court Disposition

Permission refused; ECRO extended

Orders

  • Permission for Mr Hurst to make the proposed applications is refused as totally without merit.
  • The Extended Civil Restraint Order against Mr Hurst is extended for a further 2 years, expiring on 15 November 2024.