Background
Perseus Ventures Limited brought civil proceedings arising from Barclays’ lending, the appointment of receivers, and the sale of a charged London property. The company alleged wrongdoing by the receivers, their solicitors, and Barclays. At a case-management hearing, Master Brown struck out parts of the claim and imposed unless orders and other conditions on what remained. Perseus did not comply, so the remaining claim stood struck out from 24 June 2025. It neither appealed Master Brown’s order nor sought relief from sanctions.
Perseus later made applications dated 26 June and 8 October 2025 seeking, among other relief, to treat earlier orders as void, obtain summary judgment, secure a preliminary-issue trial, and receive an interim payment. Soole J dismissed both applications as totally without merit and imposed a two-year extended civil restraint order. Perseus then applied under CPR 23.8(3) to vary or set aside Soole J’s paper order and to discharge the restraint order.
The Court’s Holding
Mr Justice Dexter Dias dismissed Perseus’s argument that Master Brown lacked jurisdiction because the civil claim included allegations capable of amounting to criminal conduct. The restriction in Practice Direction 2B concerning “criminal proceedings or matters” applies to proceedings capable of exposing a person to criminal prosecution, conviction, or punishment. Serious allegations made within an ordinary civil claim do not convert it into a criminal proceeding or matter, so Master Brown had jurisdiction.
The court dismissed the challenges to Soole J’s treatment of both the June and October applications and certified the present challenges as totally without merit. The underlying claim remained struck out, the relevant earlier orders had not been appealed, and several forms of relief sought were unavailable in a claim that was no longer extant. The court also refused to discharge the extended civil restraint order, finding that repeated totally without merit applications justified it and that Perseus’s subsequent conduct reinforced the need for continued restraint.
Because Perseus failed on all issues and had pursued highly unreasonable applications while making unsupported grave allegations against judges and legal professionals, the court ordered it to pay the respondents’ costs of the 6 January 2026 application on the indemnity basis, subject to summary assessment if not agreed.
Key Takeaways
- Civil allegations of fraud, conspiracy, or other potentially criminal conduct do not by themselves place a claim outside a High Court Master’s jurisdiction under Practice Direction 2B.
- A party cannot bypass an unappealed order or the consequences of an unless order by characterising the earlier order as void without a sound jurisdictional basis.
- Repeated totally without merit applications can justify an extended civil restraint order, while highly unreasonable litigation conduct and unsupported accusations may warrant indemnity costs.
Why It Matters
The judgment clarifies the boundary between civil claims containing allegations of criminal conduct and proceedings that are genuinely criminal in nature. The decisive question is whether the proceedings could lead to criminal jeopardy, not merely whether the pleaded conduct could also constitute an offence.
It also illustrates the procedural consequences of ignoring unless orders, failing to appeal, and repeatedly seeking relief inconsistent with a claim’s struck-out status. Courts may certify such applications as totally without merit, restrict further filings, and impose indemnity costs where the conduct is sufficiently outside the norm.