Courtman v Ludlam & Anor, Court of Appeal - Chancery Division, August 06, 2009, [2009] EWHC 2067 (Ch)

Reporting Judge: [2009] EWHC 2067 (Ch)

President: Courtman v Ludlam & Anor

Linked as:

Extract

Courtman v Ludlam & Anor, Court of Appeal - Chancery Division, August 06, 2009, [2009] EWHC 2067 (Ch)

Neutral Citation Number: [2009] EWHC 2067 (Ch)

Case No 4156 of 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CHANCERY DIVISION

IN BANKRUPTCY

Royal Courts of Justice, Strand,

London, WC2A 2LL

Date: Thursday 6 August 2009

MR EDWARD BARTLEY JONES QC

(sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

IN THE MATTER of John Michael Ludlam (a bankrupt)

AND IN THE MATTER of the Insolvency Act 1986

BETWEEN:-

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr Hugh Sims (instructed by Bevan Brittan LLP of Bristol) for the Applicant

John Michael Ludlam and Caroline Lesley Ludlam in person

HEARING DATE: Tuesday 14 July 2009

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION:

1. Before me are two applications by Tyrone Courtman (``the Trustee'') who is the present trustee-in-bankruptcy of John Michael Ludlam (``Mr Ludlam''). The first of these applications was issued on 27 January 2009 and seeks the making of an extended, alternatively limited, civil restraint order (``CRO'') against each of Mr Ludlam and his wife, Caroline Lesley Ludlam (``Mrs Ludlam''). The second application was issued on 24 April 2009 and seeks relief under sections 366 and 367 of the Insolvency Act 1986 against both of Mr Ludlam and Mrs Ludlam. The substantive issues which arose on the second application were resolved during the course of the hearing before me and all that now remains is the question of costs. I shall deal with that issue of costs on hand-down of this judgment.

2. On the application for the CRO the Trustee was represented by Mr Sims. Mr and Mrs Ludlam appeared in person and each addressed me. It is right to point out, at this early stage, that Mr and Mrs Ludlam behaved with impeccable courtesy in and to the court and made their points in an economic and articulate way. Nevertheless, what they had to say left me with little confidence that they had seen the error of their previous ways and with no confidence whatsoever that they would not, in the future, engage in litigation, and make applications, which were entirely unmeritorious.

3. When considering whether or not to make a CRO I must consider each of Mr Ludlam and Mrs Ludlam independently and separately. If I decide to make a CRO against both I must consider carefully whether the same level of CRO is required as against each of Mr Ludlam and Mrs Ludlam.

CRO's

4. As from 1 October 2004 (by virtue of the insertion of Rule 3.11 into Part 3 of the CPR) the court has had power to make a CRO against a party to proceedings. The principles applicable, and practice to be employed, are set out in Practice Direction C to CPR Part 3 (``the PD''). There are three levels of CRO:-

(1) a limited CRO restrains the party against ...

See the full content of this document