Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council v Father & Anor

This hearing is to consider whether the Court should make a Civil Restraint Order in respect of the father.

I have heard submissions from both parents who are in person and the solicitor for the Local Authority, Ms Eccleston-Palmer.

The hearing is listed further to the order of District Judge Veal dated 23 July 2025 following public law proceedings concerning the parents’ two children. I have the benefit of his Judgment.

District Judge Veal made Care Orders in respect of both children with the children remaining in the care of their Mother. There was already a Non-Molestation Order in place, and he extended that order for a further four years and made a section 91(14) for the same time in respect of the Father.

Paragraph 10 of his order reads as follows:

“Civil Restraint Order

The Court shall refer the matter to the Designated Civil or Family Judge for consideration to the making of a Civil Restraint Order.”

At paragraphs 207 and 208 of his judgment, he says this:

“In addition, I have considered whether an extended or general Civil Restraint Order should be made against the Father. That, in my judgment, would complement the making of a section 91(14) order, because it extends the filter to other types of litigation, and I have in mind specifically the Family Law Act 1996 applications. The Father has submitted that he will apply to discharge the Non-Molestation Orders, if he is acquitted at the end of the criminal proceedings, which increases my concerns. Given that I do not have the jurisdiction to make an extended or general Civil Restraint Order, I am going to direct a transcript of this judgment at public expense, so that I can refer that issue to the designated family or civil judge, to consider [and that judgment has been transcribed and circulated to all parties].”

The Father sought to appeal the order of the District Judge. I refused that application, as totally without merit, on 13 August 2025.

In my previous order, when the appeal was considered by me on paper, I made clear that I would not consider the Civil Restraint Order until that appeal had been dealt with, and having then dealt with the appeal, on 13 August, I listed this hearing.

The final order of District Judge Veal set out the issue of the Civil Restraint Order, and my order within the appeal made clear that I would list the Civil Restraint Order, to include for how long, and in what terms, for two hours.

The father tells me that he has not had time to prepare for this matter but, since the final care orders were made, I am clear he has been aware that the question of the making of a Civil Restraint Order remained live, and that the matter today was listed giving time for him to prepare.

The various proceedings concerning the children have been long running. The Father has applied for contempt proceedings, and although they have been withdrawn, they would have clearly had significant impact. The District Judge noted, in his judgment, the Father has made six applications which have been certified as totally without merit in the care proceedings alone. I, of course, also certified his appeal in those terms.

District Judge Veal, in his judgment, at paragraph 163, says this:

“I have outlined the procedural history in some detail, quite deliberately. That, in itself, illustrates, in my judgement, how the Father has used litigation post-separation as a form of abuse directed at the Mother. I do not believe, for example, that his contempt application, made shortly after these proceedings were commenced, was for a purpose other than to put the Mother under pressure and to try and control outcomes for himself. He told me directly, in fact, at the hearing on 4 April, that he did not want to see the Mother punished.”

Going on, at paragraph 165, to say:

“In my judgement, it is highly likely that the contempt application was made as a form of abuse against the Mother in those circumstances, and I am going to make a finding to that effect.”

At paragraph 166:

“What the Father’s litigation also shows amply, in my judgment, is that when the Father does not like outcomes that are imposed on him, he finds them difficult to accept, he then tries relentlessly, I think, to push the boundaries of what he is, or he is not, permitted to do; or he attempts to control outcomes in other ways.”

The Father told me today, that on Friday (so the working day before this hearing), he has applied to set aside the Non-Molestation Order and that his application has, “been accepted by the Court”, and that he has made this application as he was found guilty recently in the Crown Court for breaches of that Order.

Rule 4.8 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 gives the Court power to make a Civil Restraint Order, and Practice Direction 4B sets out: (a) the circumstances in which the Court has the power to make a Civil Restraint Order against the party; (b) the procedure where a party applies for a Civil Restraint Order against another party; and (c) the consequences of the Court making a Civil Restraint Order.

Practice Direction 4B records that:

“Rules 4.3(7), 4.4(5) and 18.13 provide that where a statement of case or application is struck out or dismissed and is totally without merit, the court…must specify that fact and the court must consider whether to make a civil restraint order…”

This allows the Court, of its own motion and without application, to make an order and that was clearly in the District Judge's mind, when he made paragraph 10 of his order.

Although the Rules do provide for the Court to make such an order without hearing from the parties, it is on the basis that the parties then have the right to apply to have that order set aside, varied or stayed, and the higher courts have made clear that Civil Restraint Orders should usually be made on notice to the person affected, and they should be provided sufficient time to prepare their defence.

In this case, the Father has had since the Care Order, to do so and my order of 13 August specifically listed this hearing for that purpose.

The power to make Civil Restraint Orders are separate, and do not replace the powers of the Court pursuant, to section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989.

Practice Direction 4B sets out the three types of Civil Restraint Order that the Court can make. They are in levels, in ascending order of breadth and seriousness:

In this case, I am considering whether an extended Civil Restraint Order is required, as a limited Civil Restraint Order could not cover the Contempt or Family Law Act proceedings. A general Civil Restraint Order would not be necessary, as what is being asked is protection against proceedings which involve this Mother and these children, and not in respect of the Father’s ability to litigate against the world.

As the Designated Family Judge of Dorset, I am able to make all types of Civil Restraint Order, to include limited, extended and general, pursuant to Schedule 2, Table 3, of the Family Court Composition and Distribution of Business Rules 2014.

The purpose underlying the making of a Civil Restraint Order was summarised in these terms by Leggatt J, as he then was, in Nowack v The Nursing and Midwifery Council [2013] EWHC 1932 (QB) para 58:

“58.

As explained by the Court of Appeal in the leading case of Bhamjee v Forsdick [2004] 1 WLR 88, the rationale for the regime of civil restraint orders is that a litigant who makes claims or applications which have absolutely no merit harms the administration of justice by wasting the limited time and resources of the courts. Such claims and applications consume public funds and divert the courts from dealing with cases which have real merit. Litigants who repeatedly make hopeless claims or applications impose costs on others for no good purpose and usually at little or no cost to themselves. Typically such litigants have time on their hands and no means of paying any [of the] costs of litigation – so they are entitled to remission of court fees and the prospect of an order for costs against them is no deterrent. In these circumstances there is a strong public interest in protecting the court system from abuse by imposing an additional restraint on their use of the court's resources.

59.

It is important to note that a civil restraint order does not prohibit access to the courts. It merely requires a person who has repeatedly made wholly unmeritorious claims or applications to have any new claim or application which falls within the scope of the order reviewed by a judge at the outset to determine whether it should be permitted to proceed. The purpose of a civil restraint order is simply to protect the court's process from abuse, and not to shut out claims or applications which are properly [argued].”

In this case, and in quite short succession, the Father has made six applications, which were dismissed as totally without merit. He has then appealed and his appeals have also been dismissed as totally without merit.

What is clear from the judgment of the District Judge (which needs to be read in full with this judgment), and what I have seen from the Father’s appeal, and what I have heard from him today, he has sadly completely lost sight of the issues. He has to be right, everybody else is wrong, and specifically the Mother is the root cause of all the family problems. He is determined to prove that, no matter the cost to all those involved, and no matter the harm that he causes to the Mother or the children. Of course, in this case, the District Judge has already found that litigation is being used as a weapon of abuse.

The father has been found guilty of all three charges of breaching his Non-Molestation Order in relation to the Mother. I am told the Crown Court trial completed last week, or the week before. The father, I assume, is on bail and will be sentenced at some later date. He tells me that he is going to appeal the conviction. He tells me that he is going to apply to discharge the Non-Molestation Order, even though it was extended by District Judge Veal and his appeal has been dismissed. He is going to apply for a fact-find within any Family Law Act proceedings. He is going to appeal my refusal of his appeal on the basis not that I am wrong but because I dealt with his appeal of the Interim Care Order and I am now “marking my own homework”.

What is clear, from all he told me, is that he is not going to stop, and from his point of view, the court and the litigation is very much going to continue.

I accept what the District Judge found, with regard to the number of applications. I accept that they were all held to be totally without merit, and I accept that his appeals have been dealt with on that basis. I accept that he is not going to stop, and I am clear that there are more applications that are going to flow.

As such, the father is firmly within the territory of making a Civil Restraint Order.

I agree entirely with the District Judge, that section 91(14) does not restrain the Father in respect of contempt proceedings, or indeed as he said the Family Law Act proceedings. Even though he was convicted of the breaches he has applied to discharge the Non-Molestation Order.

As such, the harm of ongoing proceedings as the District Judge found will, I am clear, continue.

As I have already said, this is not a case where a general Civil Restraint Order is either appropriate or necessary. But it is also a case where a limited Restraint Order does not go far enough to stop the harm that is being caused.

I find that the test for making an extended Civil Restraint Order is met, and I am of the firm judgment – for the reasons I have set out, and adopting, as I do, the findings of the District Judge – that such an order is both necessary and required.

I come to that decision, for a number of reasons:

In my judgment an extended Civil Restraint Order does not deny the Father the right to come to court. But it provides an appropriate filter at first instance.

As I have said, a limited Civil Restraint Order would only restrain the Father in the Children Act proceedings. It does not go further, and an extended order is required. The maximum length I can make an order for is two years.

I am going to make it for the maximum length, and I do so, taking into account the history, taking into account the findings of the District Judge, having heard submissions and the plans of the father; and also, the fact that both the Non-Molestation and the section 91(14) Order were, in fact, made for four years.

With respect to the Father, everybody – to include him –now needs a break, and the concentration needs not to be on litigation, but needs to be on repairing his family relationships and undertaking the work that has been identified.

[Addressing the Father:] I am going to make an extended Civil Restraint Order against you for two years. I think you need to stop making applications. I appreciate you think everyone is wrong and that Court applications are your only option. To-date you have not achieved what you had hoped and I would ask you to consider the alternative and at least consider the steps the experts have suggested. You are an intelligent man who loves his children deeply and therefore I would urge you to consider other options.

Any permission application will be listed before me.