Civil restraint order

A court's answer to a litigant who keeps filing hopeless applications — not a ban from court, but a requirement to get a judge's permission before filing anything else.

What counts as a "totally without merit" application?

An application is totally without merit if it has no rational basis on which it could succeed — not merely weak, or unsuccessful on balance, but bound to fail. A judge who dismisses an application as totally without merit must record that finding on the face of the order, which is what starts the count toward a civil restraint order. One dismissed application that is not marked totally without merit does not count toward the threshold.

Does a civil restraint order stop me from defending a claim brought against me?

No. A civil restraint order restrains the person it is made against from issuing further claims or applications without permission — it does not stop them from filing a defence, or from taking the ordinary procedural steps needed to respond to a claim someone else has brought against them. The order targets the person's own applications and claims, not their right to defend.

If someone I am suing has a civil restraint order against them, does that help my case?

It may slow down the applications they can throw at you, since any application they want to make needs a judge's permission first, filtering out hopeless ones before you have to respond to them. It does not decide your underlying claim, which still has to be proved in the usual way.

Can I apply for permission under a civil restraint order myself, without a solicitor?

Yes. The order itself, and the practice direction, set out how to ask the named judge for permission — usually in writing, on notice to the other side, explaining why the proposed claim or application is not totally without merit. There is no requirement to use a solicitor, though the application needs to engage properly with why the new step is different from the ones that led to the order.

Is a civil restraint order the same as being banned from court?

No. It is a permission filter, not a ban. A person subject to even a general civil restraint order can still bring a claim or application — they just need a judge's permission first, and the application for permission is considered on its own merits before anything is allowed to proceed.

The three tiers, and who can make each one

Practice Direction 3C sets out three tiers of civil restraint order, each wider than the last. A limited civil restraint order can be made by any judge, in any proceedings, after a party has made two or more applications that the court has recorded as totally without merit. It restrains only further applications in that same set of proceedings, and it needs no transfer to a more senior judge — the judge who is already dealing with the case can impose it directly, and it typically lasts for the remainder of those proceedings.

An extended civil restraint order goes further. It can only be made by a High Court or Court of Appeal judge, or by a Designated Civil Judge in the county court, where a party has persistently issued claims or made applications that are totally without merit. Rather than being confined to one set of proceedings, it restrains the person from issuing any claim or application concerning the same or connected matters, in specified courts, for a fixed period the practice direction allows to run up to three years in the first instance. If a more junior judge thinks an extended order is called for, the case has to be transferred up so a judge with the power to make one can decide.

A general civil restraint order is the broadest tier, reserved for cases where an extended order would not be sufficient — typically where the person has gone on bringing totally without merit claims or applications even while already subject to an extended order, or across unrelated subject matter. It can restrain the person from issuing any claim or application in specified courts at all, regardless of subject matter, and like an extended order it can only be made by a judge of the Court of Appeal or High Court, or a Designated Civil Judge, in the county court. Any extension of a general order is capped by the practice direction at two years at a time, and a court does not extend one automatically — it has to be satisfied an extension is still appropriate on the evidence at that point.

What it actually stops you doing

A civil restraint order is a permission filter, not a ban. A person subject to one can still bring a genuine claim or application — they simply have to ask the named judge for permission first, in writing, explaining why the proposed step has merit and is not simply a repeat of what has already failed. The judge considers that request on paper, without a hearing unless one is directed, and can refuse permission without the other side even being troubled to respond. This is the practical effect for a defendant who has been on the receiving end of persistent unmeritorious applications: once an order is made, each new attempt has to clear a filter before it reaches them at all.

Importantly, none of the three tiers stops the person from defending a claim brought against them, or taking the ordinary procedural steps that defending a claim requires. The order targets their own claims and applications, not their right to respond to someone else's. It also does not decide the underlying dispute — it only controls how many further bites at the cherry the person gets, and under what supervision.

How this differs from a simple strike out

A strike out deals with one claim, or one part of a statement of case, that the court decides should not continue — for example because it discloses no reasonable grounds, or is an abuse of the court's process. It is a one-off ruling on the merits of what is in front of the court at that moment.

A civil restraint order is different in kind. It does not, by itself, dispose of any particular claim. Instead it is a forward-looking control on behaviour — a response to a pattern across multiple applications or claims, not a verdict on any one of them. A single claim can be struck out without anyone ever becoming subject to a civil restraint order, and a civil restraint order can be made even after a claim has properly run its course, if the pattern of totally without merit applications continues in its aftermath. The two tools solve different problems: a strike out removes something that should not be there; a civil restraint order supervises someone who keeps bringing things that should not be there.

A defendant in a small claim successfully defends the claim, and judgment is entered against the claimant. Over the following four months, the claimant makes three separate applications to the same court — to set aside the judgment, to reopen the trial, and to join a new party — each one dismissed by the judge as totally without merit, with that finding recorded on the order each time.

Totally without merit applications

Threshold for a limited CRO

Limited civil restraint order

Permission needed for further applications in this case

On the fourth application, the judge makes a limited civil restraint order. The claimant can still apply for things in the case, but only after asking the named judge for permission first and explaining why the new application is different from the ones already dismissed. The defendant is not required to respond to anything further unless and until that permission is given.

Application notice (N244)

Civil Procedure Rules, rule 3.11

Practice Direction 3C — Civil Restraint Orders

Extended civil restraint orders in force

Civil Restraint Order — Small Claims Glossary

What a civil restraint order is, the three tiers under Practice Direction 3C, and what it actually stops a litigant from doing.