Bukhari v Pow Trust & Ors [2009] EWHC 19 (QB) (16 January 2009)

Bukhari v Pow Trust & Ors [2009] EWHC 19 (QB) (16 January 2009)

The CRO should be reinstated because the requirements for its imposition were met: multiple applications by the Respondents had been found totally without merit, and the order was set aside after the court was misled by the Respondents' failure to disclose the full procedural history. There was no material...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 19 (QB)
Parties
Applicant: Sayed Bukhari; Respondent: POW Trust; Respondent: Peter Sainsbury; Respondent: John McVicar; Respondent: Angelo Silva
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside/discharge and Reinstate a Civil Restraint Order / High Court Review of Previous Orders, Application to Reinstate CRO
Outcome
CRO reinstated; application to set aside CRO refused
Legal Topics
Civil Restraint Orders, Possession Proceedings, Abuse of Process, Without Merit Applications, Court Procedure
Civil Procedure Property Law Civil Restraint Orders Possession Proceedings Abuse of Process Without Merit Applications Court Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sayed Bukhari

Applicant

POW Trust

Respondent

Peter Sainsbury

Respondent

John McVicar

Respondent

Angelo Silva

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to Set Aside/discharge and Reinstate a Civil Restraint Order / High Court Review of Previous Orders, Application to Reinstate CRO

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Civil Restraint Order (CRO) should be reinstated after being set aside
  2. 2 Whether the court was misled in setting aside the CRO
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for making a CRO were met under Practice Direction 3C

Ratio Decidendi

The CRO should be reinstated because the requirements for its imposition were met: multiple applications by the Respondents had been found totally without merit, and the order was set aside after the court was misled by the Respondents' failure to disclose the full procedural history. There was no material misapprehension affecting the original making of the CRO, and the Respondents' applications to discharge it were themselves totally without merit.

Court Disposition

CRO reinstated; application to set aside CRO refused

Orders

  • The Civil Restraint Order is reinstated against POW Trust, Peter Sainsbury, John McVicar, and Angelo Silva.
  • The application by Mr Sainsbury (for POW Trust) to set aside the CRO is refused as totally without merit.