Marshall vs The Official Receiver

This case involved Michael Marshall's application to discharge an extended civil restraint order (ECRO) imposed by Mrs Justice Foster in 2021. The application was dismissed by HHJ Paul Matthews.

TLDR:

• Michael Marshall applied to discharge an ECRO.
• The ECRO was originally imposed due to repeated vexatious litigation.
• The court dismissed the application, finding it without merit.

Michael Marshall, the claimant, sought to discharge an extended civil restraint order (ECRO) that was imposed on him by Mrs Justice Foster in 2021. The ECRO was set to expire on December 10, 2023. Marshall's application was made under CPR Practice Direction 3C, paragraph 3.2(2).

The background of this case is complex, involving litigation between 2003 and 2007, where Marshall's stepsisters successfully traced proceeds from the sale of property originally owned by their father. Marshall and his mother, who passed away in 2011, were defendants in that litigation. Marshall was made bankrupt in 2007 after failing to pay costs orders.

The trustee in bankruptcy issued proceedings to realize Marshall's assets, including land in Wales. Various challenges by Marshall to his bankruptcy were dismissed, and a possession order was made in 2009. In 2017, Marshall brought proceedings on behalf of his mother's estate, which were struck out due to lack of standing.

Marshall's application to discharge the ECRO was based on a 2022 trial under TOLATA 1996, which he claimed addressed issues not previously determined. However, the court found that the 2022 trial involved Marshall in both capacities as claimant and defendant, which is legally impermissible.

The court noted that the evidence presented by Marshall was self-serving and omitted crucial information, such as his bankruptcy and previous litigation outcomes. The court found that the 2022 order by Deputy District Judge Evans did not effectively determine the beneficial ownership of the property in question.

HHJ Paul Matthews concluded that Marshall's application was a collateral attack on the decision of Mrs Justice Foster and was totally without merit. The application was dismissed, and the court recorded that it was an impudent attempt to obtain an unjustified order.

Legal representatives: Michael Marshall (in person)

Judicial Panel: HHJ Paul Matthews

Case Citation Reference: [2023] EW Misc 21