Cobb J. Application for an extension of an extended civil restraint order and an application for further financial orders within long-running financial remedy proceedings.

Facts

The parties had been engaged in litigation in England and Australia in relation to financial matters on and off since early 2009. An extended civil restraint order (ECRO) was made in October 2019 and had been extended twice, expiring in October 2024.

This hearing concerned two applications:

1. H’s application for an extension of the ECRO.
2. W’s application for further financial orders against H.

A financial order was made in December 2022 which provided for H to send to W a copy of his submitted tax return for the purposes of child maintenance.

H argued that since the last ECRO was made, W continued to try to re-open the litigation. She had made two applications since the last ECRO including the application dated 10 March 2025 for ‘financial/maintenance orders’. This application was marked as ‘urgent’, although it was not. W alleged that H was in contempt of court by reason of failing to provide tax returns since 2022. She claimed this application fell outside the terms of the ECRO. She was clear that she wanted to see the ‘full financial landscape’. H argued that her application was plainly caught within the terms of the ECRO and the relevant information had been provided to allow for child support computation to take place.

Legal principles

To extend an ECRO, the sole criterion is ‘appropriateness’.

FPR PD 4B, para 3.10: the court may extend an ECRO for a further two years on each occasion ‘if it considers it appropriate to do so’.

Judgment

Cobb J ruled that it was necessary to extend the ECRO for a further two years to protect H from further vexatious proceedings. A primary reason was that W had made a number of failed applications over a number of years and there were multiple findings of her abuse of the court process. He also took into account that, as recently as 10 March 2025, W sought to issue a fresh application for financial disclosure as a likely precursor to further applications. W also remained fixated on H’s alleged non-disclosure.

Cobb J was alive to the implications of such a draconian order but was clear that ‘if ever there was a case which the necessity of such an order was justified, this is it’.

This order protects H and the court itself from abuse of process and is not designed or intended to shut out claims or applications which are properly arguable.

In the present application, W’s application for ‘financial/maintenance orders’ was found to be within the ambit of the ECRO and therefore permission was needed to bring the application. This was refused and the judge found that H had complied with the 2022 order in providing his tax returns.

In future, under the extended ECRO, W would need to notify H of an intention to make an application, obtain a response from H, and forward both application and response to Peel J for consideration of leave.