Litigants in Person and the Civil Restraint Order Trap
For many, navigating the legal system without professional representation is a daunting task. Known as?Litigants in Person (LiPs), these individuals take on the courts without the benefit of a solicitor or barrister, often due to financial constraints or a deep belief in their own cause. While some manage their cases successfully, others fall into a?dangerous legal trap—pushing their claims too far and triggering a?Civil Restraint Order (CRO).
A CRO is the court’s way of dealing with?persistent, meritless, or abusive litigation. For LiPs, it represents a?severe restriction on their ability to bring future legal challenges?and can have devastating personal and financial consequences.
What Is a Civil Restraint Order?
A?Civil Restraint Order (CRO)?is issued by the court to prevent individuals from making repeated, baseless applications. It exists to protect the judicial system from being clogged with frivolous litigation and to prevent one party from unduly burdening the other with constant legal challenges. CROs come in three forms:
For LiPs who find themselves on the wrong side of a CRO, the restrictions can be catastrophic, effectively?shutting them out of the justice system.
How LiPs Fall Into the CRO Trap
LiPs are often driven by?a strong sense of injustice. Without legal training, many believe they are uncovering procedural errors or misconduct that the courts have overlooked. This leads them to repeatedly challenge decisions, often without understanding the legal boundaries of reasonable litigation.
领英推荐
Common Triggers for a CRO
The Impact of a Civil Restraint Order
Once a CRO is in place, the consequences are severe:
Avoiding the CRO Trap
For LiPs, the best way to avoid falling into the CRO trap is to?recognise when persistence becomes counterproductive. This means:
Conclusion
While the courts must protect themselves from abusive litigation, LiPs often fall into the CRO trap unknowingly. What begins as a fight for justice can spiral into a series of legal missteps that ultimately?shut them out of the very system they turned to for help. Recognising the warning signs early and?seeking structured, strategic guidance?can mean the difference between a well-handled case and?a court order that blocks access to justice entirely.
Owner of Cafe Helen
3 周NatWest Bank and its legal advisers Dentons are refusing full disclosure regarding material irregularities found on Bank Draft No. 111111 600012 05977380, dated 16 May 1985, issued in the sum of ￡25,000 payable to O.M. Marks & Co.. These irregularities are conclusive evidence that the draft could not have been processed through the British banking system, rendering it a false instrument under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981. 1. Irregular Number 111111 – Impossible to Process Through Clearing: The bank draft (111111 600012 05977380) contains the sequence 111111, which is: Not a valid UK account number: UK bank account numbers are always eight digits, not six. Not a valid UK sort code: UK sort codes are always six digits, but 111111 does not correspond to any valid clearing route. Not a valid MICR code: BACS clearing requires standard MICR encoding, which cannot process 111111 as an account or transit number. Not a valid serial number format: Bank draft serials follow numerical sequences assigned by the bank’s ledger, not arbitrary repetitive numbers (111111) Conclusion: The presence of 111111 is irrefutable proof that the bank draft number 111111 600012 05977380 was never processed through the Banking clearing system
Owner of Cafe Helen
3 周In the United Kingdom, perverting the course of justice is a serious common law offence with no statute of limitations, meaning legal proceedings can be initiated at any time after the alleged offence. This offence encompasses actions intended to obstruct or interfere with the administration of justice, such as providing false information or concealing evidence. I accuse NatWest Bank and Dentons of perverting the course of justice Under Takhar v. Gracefield Developments Ltd [2019] UKSC 13, there is no time limit to challenge a judgment obtained by fraud. Relevant Case Law Supporting No Time Limit for Fraudulent Judgments: ? Nourish v. Smith [2003] EWCA Civ 1074: Established that fraud unravels all. A judgment obtained by fraud can be challenged at any time, even decades later. Takhar v. Gracefield Developments Ltd [2019] UKSC 13: The UK Supreme Court ruled that a party can set aside a judgment obtained by fraud without needing to show that the evidence could not have been discovered earlier.
manager
3 周https://www.dhirubhai.net/posts/david-hepburn-a741b172_my-son-was-a-professional-footballer-at-11-activity-7293799728868151296-Mc0e?utm_medium=ios_app&rcm=ACoAAA9Vs7gBwIYrKVIb5FZhf0PVsKxFdYKuOdQ&utm_source=social_share_send&utm_campaign=copy_link
Owner of Cafe Helen
3 周NatWest Bank are turning a blind eye to the fact that this bank draft request form was loosly drawn up by the NatWest Bank Manager at 358 Oxford Street W1 and handed over to a third party outside of the bank outside the ordinary course of business of the bank for the sole purpose of theft to my bank account and to enable O. M Marks to obtain my signature upon it by a misrepresentation to me inside NatWest Banks Berkeley Square Branch at the closing time of the Bank on 16 May 1985 that he was exchanging my cash money for a bankers draft in his favour. My ￡25,000 cash was stolen from me by Omek Marks and the sum of ￡25,000 was debited to my bank account supposedly as an overdraft in the form of a bank draft number 111111 600012 05977380 . I have been scammed by NatWestBank and the banks upper Management silence is fraud to conceal a fraud when they have a duty to speak. Read NatWest Banks letter carefully by the Banks own admission my signature didn’t even exist on the bank draft request form when they handed over the bank draft to a third party outside of the bank . Look at the number 05977380 on the above mentioned Bank draft request form. Look at the bank draft it is undeniable that NatWest Bank was not entitled to act as it did.
Owner of Cafe Helen
4 周The action that I am requesting, namely that the FSA, RBS regulator and or HM Treasury should confirm or deny whether the above mentioned Nat West bank draft number 111111 600012 05977380 Is a sham a fraud a false document a scam drawn up by Nat West Bank to cover up its sham transaction. incapable of being cleared funds through the banking system because of the binary numbers 111111 600012 05977380 on its face would prove my claim against NatWest Bank but they all refuse to confirm or deny Perhaps because it may upset the markets