Judgment was recently handed down in the case of Lloyds Bank PLC v Trevor Mealham & Tracey Alford [2024] EWHC 2737 (Ch), in which the latest of the First Defendant’s (“D1”) applications, like many before it, was held to be totally without merit (“TWM”). The Judgment of Mr David Halpern KC sitting as a High Court Judge (“the Judge”) highlighted the “extraordinary behaviour” of D1 during the hearings, which led to the police being called to court on 25 October 2024, when the case was heard in person, and the hearing resuming remotely on 28 October 2024, and concluded that the Claimant was entitled to be protected against D1’s “crusade” by an extended civil restraint order.

Procedural History

Over the course of more than 7 years, numerous applications were made by D1 (and dismissed). An abridged procedural history follows:

• 16 February 2017: Possession proceedings issued by the Claimant.
• 13 November 2017: D1’s application for (extensive) disclosure was dismissed as TWM.
• 12 July 2018: Injunction granted restraining D1 from harassing and intimidating the Claimant’s witnesses.
• 10 May 2019: D1’s application for permission to appeal injunction dismissed as TWM.
• August 2022: Possession order made after 4-day trial.
• 1 March 2023: D1’s application for permission to appeal the possession order dismissed as TWM.
• 23 August 2023: D1’s application to “strike out order of eviction and restraining order”, treated as an application for suspension of the possession order and an injunction against the Claimant, was dismissed.
• 8 May 2024: Order made dispensing with the requirement to deliver notice of eviction on the Defendants before issuing a writ of possession.

A resealed version of this last order, drawn up on 20 May 2024 to include the opportunity for the Defendants to apply to set it aside pursuant to CPR 23.10, was ultimately the order which was treated as the subject of the application. This was on the basis that it was not open to D1 to apply to set aside the possession order (as permission to appeal had already been refused) or the order refusing to suspend the possession order (as no application for permission to appeal had been made and more than a year had passed since that order was made).

Hearings

During the first hearing, in person on 25 October 2024, D1 began by raising allegations of fraud which he said raised issues of national security. The Judge told D1 that it was not open to him to reopen these issues, which had been dealt with and dismissed previously. During the hearing, D1 frequently interrupted Counsel for the Claimant with “vociferous” support from approximately 20 members of the public in the courtroom. After being warned that he would be found in contempt of court if this continued, D1 shouted at the Judge and accused him of being in contempt. Court security, then the police, were asked to remove D1 and the members of the public. When they refused to leave, the Judge directed that the hearing should resume on 28 October 2024 remotely to enable him to mute D1 if he continued to be disruptive.

At the remote hearing, on 28 October 2024, 66 members of the public attended, one of whom identified himself as “King Charles III”. The Judge muted D1 during submissions on both the substantive application and the question of a civil restraint order as D1 persisted in allegations of fraud by the Claimant and references to national security.

Judgment

The Judge dismissed the application as TWM, nothing:

1. Issues of national security were not open to D1 to pursue.
2. No proper basis was given that enabled the decision regarding the hardship to D1’s son to be reconsidered. It had previously been held that the discretion in the Administration of Justice Acts 1970 and 1973 was limited to preventing a possession order from being made or enforced where there is a prospect of repayment; and
3. There was no evidence of apparent bias.

The Judge also made an extended civil restraint order against D1 noting this was the seventh TWM finding in the case as well as the credible evidence that D1 had harassed and intimidated witnesses for the Claimant, and that D1 was involved with a “self-help group” who seek to prevent bailiffs from enforcing possession orders. The Judge said that the Claimant was entitled to be protected against D1’s “crusade”, and that this was necessary to prevent D1 continuing to waste a disproportionate amount of judicial time. Permission to appeal was refused.

Whilst the Lender may have been encouraged that the Civil restraining order was finally made, they may be wondering which mirror they broke to precipitate the 7-year bad luck proceeding by the civil restraint order.