England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2
		27 July 2004

1. LORD JUSTICE DYSON: This is an application for a civil proceedings order. On 8th October 2003 the Solicitor General authorised the proceedings and the claim was issued on 20th April 2004.
2. The Attorney General has details of 18 civil actions in which Mr Chitolie has been involved. In 11 of these he was the claimant, in five the defendant, and in the remaining three actions he acted as the litigation friend of one of the parties, though in the course of the proceedings he came to make applications in his own name. He has not succeeded in any of his litigation. He has appealed almost every adverse decision, often several times. He frequently applies to have his unsuccessful applications, the hearing of which he often fails to attend, reinstated. His conduct has also often been abusive. He regularly accuses the other parties and the judiciary of incompetence, corruption and, indeed, various criminal practices. Having exhausted all possible options in one set of proceedings he often commences a new action as a collateral challenge to the other.
3. His civil litigation falls into four main groups, and for what follows I rely on the very helpful statement of Richard Dingwall, a barrister in the employment of the Treasury Solicitor, a statement made on 16th April this year. The first group relates to a mortgage of 192A North Drive, Maylandsea, Essex. Mr Chitolie was the mortgagor and National Westminster Bank plc were the mortgagees. Action [1] was a claim by the bank for possession. Action [6] was a claim by Mr Chitolie against the bank for £50,000 for selling his property at an undervalue. Action [7] was a claim by Mr Chitolie against the bank for damages for fraud in the sum of £3,000,000.
4. The second main group of actions concerns a dispute with Rona Property Investment Company Ltd ("Rona"). Rona was the landlord and Mr Chitolie the tenant of Unit 3, Station Industrial Estate, Burnham on Crouch, Essex. Rona re-entered the property on the ground that Mr Chitolie was in arrears of rent. In action [9] Mr Chitolie claimed £100,000 damages for conversion of chattels that had been on the premises. The premises had been burgled after Rona had re-entered. In action [10] Mr Chitolie claimed possession of the premises. In action [11] Rona took bankruptcy proceedings against Mr Chitolie, based on a costs order that had been made in action [9]. On 7th November 2000 he was made bankrupt. He also brought proceedings against Railtrack, relating to the disputed surrender of a small parcel of land adjacent to the Rona premises. That was action [8]. Mr Chitolie also issued proceedings against the Law Society, action [13], claiming compensation against alleged illegality by the solicitors who had represented him in action [9].
5. The third group of actions concerns the estate of Mr Chitolie's late sister, Julietta Christmas. Mr Chitolie disputed Ms Christmas's will, although he did not issue probate proceedings in the proper form. He occupied Ms Christmas's home, and the executors took possession proceedings against him in action [12].
6. The fourth main area of his litigation concerns a claim by a Ms Hanson in respect of a leasehold interest that she purchased, action [14]. Ms Hanson brought unsuccessful proceedings against her solicitors, her mortgagees and the local council. She then tried to revive the proceedings. At some stage he began acting as Ms Hanson's litigation friend. He then issued a claim in his own name, action [15], against the solicitors who had acted for the defendants in action [14]. He also acted as Ms Hanson's litigation friend in possession proceedings taken by Westminster City Council against her, actions [18] and [19].
7. I do not propose in this judgment to go into details of all these actions. The flavour of Mr Chitolie's activities will, I think, emerge sufficiently from what follows.
8. On 10th November 1987 in the Chelmsford County Court National Westminster Bank plc issued a claim against Mr Chitolie for possession of 192A North Drive, Maylandsea. On 12th August 1988 the court granted a possession order. On 25th August 1988 Mr Chitolie made the first of 12 applications in the proceedings. The first one was for leave to appeal out of time, on the ground that the bank had relied on forged documents. On 10th October 1988 HHJ Brandt dismissed the appeal. On 17th November Mr Chitolie applied for leave to appeal on the ground that his defence had been unfairly dismissed. On 4th January 1989 HHJ Brandt refused Mr Chitolie leave to appeal. On 27th April 1989 Stuart-Smith LJ refused leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. On 9th January 1990 Mr Chitolie applied for a hearing before the Master of the Rolls. On 3rd October 1990 the Court of Appeal dismissed the application for want of jurisdiction. On 9th November 1990 he applied for payment of £17,437 on the grounds that there had been no valid mortgage. On 27th November 1990 HHJ Brandt dismissed this application. On 5th December Mr Chitolie made an application for leave to appeal against the order of 22nd November. On 19th December HHJ Brandt dismissed the applications and ordered that no further applications by Mr Chitolie be entertained by the court and that any further actions commenced by Mr Chitolie be listed in front of himself. On 1st December 1990 Mr Chitolie issued an application for "a home". He then, on some date unknown to the Attorney, petitioned the House of Lords. That petition was dismissed as being incompetent on 24th June 1991. On 14th March 1991 Mr Chitolie applied for leave to appeal against HHJ Brandt's order of 22nd November 1990 on the ground of new evidence of forgery. On 6th December 1991 Taylor LJ refused leave to appeal, and ordered costs against Mr Chitolie on the indemnity basis. On 22nd February 1994 the Court of Appeal dismissed a further application by Mr Chitolie for want of jurisdiction. On 11th July 1994 the House of Lords dismissed as inadmissible a second petition by Mr Chitolie. Finally, on 14th February 2001 Henriques J refused Mr Chitolie permission to appeal against an order made, supposedly, on 24th June 1988 by Master Leslie.
9. On 16 June 2000 Mr Chitolie commenced action HC0002739 against National Westminster Bank plc in the Chancery Division. He claimed that the bank had "cheated him out of" £50,000. The statement of claim alleged fraud and denied that there was a valid mortgage. On 30th June 2000 the bank applied to strike out the claim, alternatively for summary judgment. On 12th July Mr Chitolie applied in turn for summary judgment. On 25th August Master Moncaster granted the bank summary judgment and awarded £2,000 costs against Mr Chitolie. On 7th September 2000 Mr Chitolie applied for permission to appeal, describing Master Moncaster as "bent" and the hearing as a "farce". On 12th October 2000 Park J refused Mr Chitolie's application, describing it as "hopeless". On 31st October 2000 Butterfield J made a Grepe v Loam order. On 30th November 2000 Sullivan J dismissed Mr Chitolie's application to set aside the order of Park J. On 18th December 2000 Buxton LJ dismissed Mr Chitolie's applications to appeal against the orders of Butterfield J and Sullivan J. On 24th January 2001 Jacob J dismissed Mr Chitolie's application to set aside the order of Park J. On 9th October 2001 Chadwick LJ refused permission to appeal against the decision of Jacob J and extended the civil restraint order to include applications to the Court of Appeal. Chadwick LJ found that Mr Chitolie's claim was a repetition of his claim in action [1].
10. On 30th August 2000 Mr Chitolie commenced action HC0005322 against National Westminster Bank plc in the Queen's Bench Division, action [7]. The claim was for £3 million for an "equivalent replacement house". On 26th September 2000 the bank applied to strike out the action. On 13th October 2000 Master Leslie struck out the claim and awarded £2,000 costs against Mr Chitolie. On 31st October Butterfield J made a Grepe v Loam order. On 18th December Buxton LJ refused Mr Chitolie permission to appeal against the Grepe v Loam order. On 19th December 2000 Forbes J refused Mr Chitolie permission to appeal against the order of Master Leslie. On 2nd January 2001 Mr Chitolie gave notice that new claims would be issued in the names of his children. The Attorney is not aware that Mr Chitolie has issued any such claims. On 8th March 2001 Colman J refused an application by Mr Chitolie to relist his application for permission to appeal against the order of Master Leslie. On 12th March 2001 Jacob J refused an application issued by Mr Chitolie on 5th February 2001. The Attorney does not have a copy of the application but it appears to have been similar to that refused by Jacob J on 24th January 2001 in action [6]. On 23rd March 2001 Mr Chitolie applied for permission to appeal against the order of Jacob J. On 6th June 2001 Deputy Master Joseph made a seven day unless order requiring Mr Chitolie to file a copy of the transcript to the judgment of Jacob J. On 9th October 2001 Chadwick LJ refused permission to appeal and extended the Grepe v Loam order.
11. As I said earlier, I do not find it necessary to examine the details of all the other claims. Suffice it to say that they exhibit a similar pattern of behaviour to that which I have just described.
12. The Attorney relies on certain recent behaviour of Mr Chitolie as further evidence of his continuing vexatious litigation. He filed a patent application in 2001. He failed to file a request for substantive examination within six months of the date of publication. Notice terminating the application was published on 28th August 2002. He applied for an extension of time for substantive examination on 19th November 2003. The patent office agreed to grant an extension of time subject to Mr Chitolie accepting certain terms. He appealed against the proposed imposition of those terms. Mr Wright, sitting as a hearing officer, granted the extension of time on condition that actions taken by third parties between the expiry of the original application for the patent and the grant of the extension of time would be treated as lawful. Mr Chitolie is appealing against that condition. The grounds upon which he relies include the following:

"1. It is wrong and out of order for Mr MC Wright to sit as an Authorised Court Officer deciding patent issues -- at the same time being an assistant Director and acting for the Comptroller of the Patent Office In Law deemed as a conflict of interest.

"2. The Misrepresentation Act 1967 is an Act to rescind the 25th March 2004 decision as there is clear innocent misrepresentation made by the patent office litigation section id est: Conditional grant of the Appellant's invention to a third party on good faith after publication of the Appellant's invention in one section when in the general section a patent grant will only be given if the invention is new.

"3. It is the Appeal Court's duty to remove this ambiguous section of the Patent Act 1977 the patent office relied upon. Because it is very damaging to upright Inventors while protecting a dishonest third party at the Appellant's expense.

"4. The Appellant objects to be dictated to by the patent office as if the UK were governed by the third Reich solely to protect a third party in full.

"5. It was wrong of the patent office to terminate the Appellant's patent application after publication for the below reasons:

(1) There is and was no need for a substantive examination.

(2) It is not in the interests of the Public for the patent office and courts to shun the Appellant for a third party such as a 'one legged roof tiler'.

(3) Under the Human Rights Act 1998 the courts must protect the Appellant's property -- not unknown third party or parties.

(4) The patent office terminated the Appellant's patent application after publication to extort money out of the Appellant."

13. There then follows in section 8 of the Notice of Appeal, which purports to be his skeleton argument, a discursive discussion which includes allegations of corruption against the department, against named judges, and concludes by saying:

"Parliament and the courts should not be just for fraudsters and dishonourable people."

14. He applies in section 10 for costs to be awarded at £4,000 per hour for and up to the appeal, totalling £32,000 plus VAT.
15. In my judgment it is abundantly clear from what I have set out, and that to which I have referred but which I have not set out, that the criteria for the grant of a civil proceedings order is more than amply made out in this case. Mr Chitolie is plainly a vexatious litigant. It is not necessary to refer beyond the classic exposition of Lord Bingham CJ in the Attorney General v Barker [2000] 1 FLR 759 at 764C to H. I do not propose to read that passage out. Suffice it to say that I am entirely satisfied that Mr Chitolie is a vexatious litigant and that the time has come when a civil proceedings order should be imposed. For my part, therefore, I would make an order in the terms sought by the Attorney in the claim form.
16. MR JUSTICE HENRIQUES: I agree.
17. MR KOVATS: My Lord, might I just refer to one point? If you take the claim form which is at the front of the file RD1.
18. LORD JUSTICE DYSON: Yes.
19. MR KOVATS: Your Lordship will see that the fourth item sought is:

"That the Court in the exercise of its general jurisdiction make an Order prohibiting you from acting as a litigation friend or a McKenzie Friend or otherwise assisting any third party in the conduct of civil proceedings without the leave of the High Court."

20. I am not sure whether or not you want me to say anything in particular about that.
21. LORD JUSTICE DYSON: I think you cover that in your skeleton.
22. MR KOVATS: I do, yes, and it is in relation to his litigation on behalf of Ms Hanson.
23. LORD JUSTICE DYSON: Yes. I do not think you need to say anything about that. Perhaps I ought to just add to my judgment that I am satisfied that having regard to Mr Chitolie's conduct in relation to Miss Hanson, to which I have briefly referred in my judgment, that it is appropriate for the court in the exercise of its general jurisdiction to make an order prohibiting Mr Chitolie from acting as a litigation friend or a McKenzie friend or otherwise assisting any third party in the conduct of civil proceedings without the leave of the High Court.
24. MR JUSTICE HENRIQUES: I agree with that also.
25. LORD JUSTICE DYSON: Thank you very much, Mr Kovats.