Same statutory basis as G-A1. LCRO is enforcement action.
The Chancery Division LCRO of 27 Feb 2025, imposed by Master Kaye on BL-2024-001089 alone, was made on Day 61 of the MHCM. It was imposed by the same judge the Claimant had complained about 7 days earlier. It is void ab initio under Reg 7(12) as it constitutes enforcement action during the moratorium. The proceedings were undefended (no defence filed for 540+ days). Any further Chancery Division filing risks escalation to a General Civil Restraint Order (GCRO).
Reg 7(12) DSRR 2020
What the opponent will argue, and why they are wrong.
LCRO is not 'enforcement action' under Reg 7(12). It is a case management order.
The Chancery Division LCRO on BL-2024-001089 alone restrains the applicant's right to make applications. It was imposed by the same judge the Claimant had complained about 7 days earlier, on undefended proceedings (no defence for 540+ days). It is a form of enforcement that restricts access to justice. R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor: access to justice is a constitutional right. A restraint order during MHCM is enforcement action. The LCRO effectively enforces the court's displeasure by restricting rights. CROs disproportionately target litigants in person.
The LCRO protects court resources from vexatious applications. It is protective, not punitive.
Even if protective, the Chancery Division LCRO on BL-2024-001089 was made on Day 61 of the MHCM by the same judge the Claimant had complained about 7 days earlier. Reg 7(12) makes no exception for 'protective' orders. The statutory language is absolute: court 'must not make an order'. If the court believed an LCRO was necessary, it should have waited until the MHCM expired. The proceedings were undefended (no defence for 540+ days). Lees v Kaye: no discretion during moratorium.
Official government-issued certificate. Statutory instrument. Not arguable.
Each order is individually dated within the MHCM period. Costs figures are stated on the face of each order.
Fallback: LCRO attacked on 3 independent non-MHCM grounds. Any one succeeding is sufficient.
Independence: Partially dependent on other grounds succeeding.
| Date | Judge | Type | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 27 February 2025 | Master Kaye | Limited Civil Restraint Order | VOID |