Updates, commentary, training and advice on immigration and asylum law
Do civil restraint orders apply to the Upper Tribunal?
THANKS FOR READING
Older content is locked
A great deal of time and effort goes into producing the information on Free Movement, become a member of Free Movement to get unlimited access to all articles, and much, much more
TAKE FREE MOVEMENT FURTHER
By becoming a member of Free Movement, you not only support the hard-work that goes into maintaining the website, but get access to premium features;
- Single login for personal use
- FREE downloads of Free Movement ebooks
- Access to all Free Movement blog content
- Access to all our online training materials
- Access to our busy forums
- Downloadable CPD certificates
The official headnote to R (Ogilvy) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Civil restraint orders)  UKUT 70 (IAC) reads in full:
It is the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction that enables it to make a civil restraint order which extends to the making of an application for judicial review in the Upper Tribunal, not the CPR.
Civil restraint orders are designed to stop a vexatious litigant from cluttering up the courts with nonsense cases. Mr Ogilvy had made 21 judicial review applications, albeit going back to 1997. Mr Justice Mostyn considered this a “very large number” and imposed an order requiring Mr Ogivly to get special permission before filing more in “any court”.
The question in this case was whether the Upper Tribunal counts as “any court”, Mr Ogilvy having enterprisingly switched forums following the order against him. The panel concluded that the High Court does have the power to make a civil restraint order covering the Upper Tribunal (paragraph 58) but had not, on the facts of this case, done so in Mr Ogilvy’s case (para 77). He therefore had not breached the order by applying for judicial review in the tribunal.