Sheikh v Beaumont

On 15 July 2009 Burnett J made a General Civil Restraint Order against Ms Sheikh. The order provided that she be restrained from issuing any claim, or making any application in the High Court or any County Court, without first obtaining permission of one of the judges of the High Court referred to in the order.

There were specific proceedings specified in the orders to which the order was not to apply. These were (a) an appeal against the order made by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal dated and filed with the Law Society on 5 May 2009; (b) the matter proceeding in the Chancery Division under case number HC 07C02257 between (1) Red River & another and Ms Sheikh and her mother Rabia Sheikh (“Mrs Sheikh”) as defendants (save that this exception did not include any claims or applications within these proceedings against Marc Beaumont, his wife, family or lawyers); and (c) any proceedings for the detailed assessment of the Defendant’s costs pursuant to paragraph 10 of the order of Simon J dated 25 June 2009. The order further provided that it would remain in effect until 15 July 2011 unless extended, amended or discharged. Mrs Sheikh is not the subject of a civil restraint order.

Practice Direction 3C to the CPR provides, at para 4.10, that the court may extend the duration of a General Civil Restraint Order if it considers it appropriate to do so, but it must not be extended for a period greater than two years on any given occasion.

The criteria governing an extension must be similar to those governing the original order. The criteria for making an order are set out in para 4.1:

“where the party against whom the order is made persists in issuing claims or making applications which are totally without merit, in circumstances where an extended civil restraint order would not be sufficient or appropriate”.

On 9 June 2011 the Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund Limited (“BMIF”), the insurers of Mr Beaumont, applied for the order of 15 July 2009 to be extended for a further period of two years, and for the costs of the application, because Ms Sheikh is likely to bring vexatious and unfounded proceedings unless so restrained.

Since the making of the order by Burnett J there have been the following events, amongst many others. On 17 November 2009 Norris J gave a judgment [2009] EWHC 2395 (Ch) in the matter of Sheikh v Dogan. Ms Sheikh had appeared in person and a Mr Sampat (who is not a lawyer) was given a right of audience for that hearing to represent her mother. Norris J had concluded that he would strike out the claims for reasons set out in an extempore judgment on 10 November 2009. Mrs Sheikh had applied for an order delaying the sealing of the order striking out her claims. In para 19 of his judgment of 17 November 2009 Norris J described the lengthy submissions, and repeated applications, made by Ms Sheikh to him. He concluded that the application to delay sealing of the order was an abuse of the process of the court.

On 21 December 2009 Richards LJ considered the appellant’s notice of Ms Sheikh in the matter of Sheikh v Beaumont, that is to say the appeal from the order of Burnett J. Richards LJ refused her application for permission to appeal as being totally without merit. He directed that she may not request the decision to be reconsidered at an oral hearing. On the same date he made two similar orders in two other actions between the same parties.

On 17 February 2010 Norris J struck out claims made by Ms Sheikh and her mother against two defendants in two separate actions HC09C02325 and 2326 and recorded that the claims were totally without merit.

The following day he struck out further claims against the other two defendants in the same two actions declaring them to be totally without merit.

Mr Speaight, appearing for BMIF, put before the court material to demonstrate that there remained a justified concern that, if the civil restraint order is not renewed, Ms Sheikh will issue and serve vexatious proceedings. There are witness statements from Mr Katsivelis of 9 June 2011 and 5 July 2011, and of Miss Gould dated 23 June 2011. He referred to the decisions of Norris J above. On 4 February 2010 a bankruptcy order was made against Ms Sheikh. Her existing causes of action therefore vested in the Official Receiver. The Official Receiver had no interest in pursuing Ms Sheikh’s action in the Chancery Division, but it was her mother who did so.

In the hearing before me there were sitting next to Ms Sheikh both her mother and Mr Sampat. Both sought to interrupt and intervene in a disorderly manner until I threatened to clear the court. In her lengthy submissions to me Ms Sheikh was unwilling to recognise the limited nature of the application before me, or the criteria upon which I had to decide to grant the extension to the order or not. She attempted to persuade me to reopen issues decided against her by other judges in the past.

In his carefully prepared skeleton argument dated 8 July 2011 Mr Speaight set out with references to the documentation, a detailed account of proceedings which Ms Sheikh has sought to pursue in the name of her mother. It is unnecessary for me to set out this history in any length in this judgment. The criteria for granting the original order were established by the decision of Burnett J, and the behaviour of Ms Sheikh before myself, and before Norris J as recorded in his judgment already referred to, amply demonstrate the need for the order to be continued.

Both before and after the hearing Ms Sheikh has sent to me a number of emails and faxes. In one of these she asks me to exclude from the extended order (or perhaps she asks for permission to make) in the Willesden County Court applications as follows:

“(1)

Set aside HHJ Copley’s order of 10 June 2011 which was made in my absence on the grounds inter alia and without prejudice to my assertion that the bankruptcy order is void that he was unaware that the Official Receiver had assigned part of the claim to me.

(2)

For the court to recommend that the Attorney General to intervene on my behalf and all the Official Solicitors to act as my litigation friend.

(3)

That the execution of the warrant of eviction be stayed pending the hearing of this application.

(4)

That the execution of the warrant of eviction be stayed pending hearing from the Official Solicitor, to whom an application will shortly be made and/or the Attorney General”.

In a witness statement dated 7 July 2011 in proceedings in Willesden County Court between Northern Rock Plc v Ms Sheikh she asserts that the purported civil restraint order was obtained by deceit, and other extravagant claims against Messrs Withers and Mr Beaumont and others. I see no basis for granting permission for that application to be made, or for those proceedings to be excluded from the civil restraint order.

It is for these reasons that I extended the general civil restraint order for a further two years.