Background
The case originated from a “Partnership Claim” filed in 2019 by Dr. Mohammed Hassan El Haddad against his former partner, Ms. Khulood Al Rostanami, and her family members. He alleged the existence of a business partnership and that assets were held by the other defendants. In 2021, Mr. Justice Zacaroli set aside an order that had allowed Dr. Haddad to serve his claim, noting that Dr. Haddad’s evidence had been “positively misleading” and his failings were the result of “deliberate conduct.”
In response to this defeat, Dr. Haddad engaged in a persistent campaign of litigation, filing numerous applications and appeals that were consistently rejected. His filings included serious but unsubstantiated allegations of fraud and bias against judges and the opposing party’s lawyers. This conduct led to multiple findings that his applications were “totally without merit” (TWM). In July 2023, Popplewell LJ imposed a three-year Extended Civil Restraint Order (ECRO) on Dr. Haddad, requiring him to obtain permission from a specific judge before making any further applications or claims related to the matter.
As the ECRO’s expiration date approached, the defendants applied to the High Court to have it extended for another three years, arguing that Dr. Haddad’s vexatious conduct had not ceased. Dr. Haddad opposed the extension and made several counter-applications, including one for the presiding judge, Mr. Justice Rajah, to recuse himself for alleged bias.
The Court’s Holding
Mr. Justice Rajah refused Dr. Haddad’s application to recuse himself. The court held that a judge’s familiarity with a case is an advantage for efficiency and not, by itself, evidence of apparent bias. The judge found that Dr. Haddad’s frustration with the ECRO process did not meet the legal test for recusal, which requires a “real possibility” of bias in the eyes of a “fair-minded and informed observer.” The court also dismissed Dr. Haddad’s application to adjourn the hearing, finding his arguments to be a flawed attempt to re-litigate the merits of his original fraud claims, which were not relevant to the question of whether to extend the ECRO.
The court then granted the defendants’ application to extend the ECRO for another three years. The judge found that Dr. Haddad had persistently abused the court’s process since the original ECRO was made, making at least 19 applications, most of which were refused, and accumulating a total of seven “totally without merit” findings from various judges. The court observed that Dr. Haddad continued to “refuse to take no for an answer” and that his conduct was expensive for the defendants and absorbed a significant amount of the court’s finite resources. Extending the ECRO was deemed necessary and appropriate to protect the defendants from harassment and to protect the integrity of the administration of justice.
Key Takeaways
- An Extended Civil Restraint Order (ECRO) will be extended when a litigant’s conduct shows they remain a high risk for bringing vexatious claims and applications that abuse court process.
- A judge’s familiarity with a case and its history is considered an advantage that promotes efficiency, not a valid reason for recusal on grounds of apparent bias.
- The basis for imposing or extending an ECRO is the litigant’s conduct (e.g., making persistent, meritless applications), not the underlying merits of their original grievance.
- Making repeated, serious, and unfounded allegations of fraud or dishonesty against judges and legal professionals is itself abusive conduct that strongly supports the extension of a civil restraint order.
Why It Matters
This judgment provides a clear example of the English courts’ powers to control vexatious litigation and protect the integrity of the judicial process. It reinforces that while access to the courts is a fundamental right, it is not absolute and can be filtered through an ECRO to prevent abuse. The decision underscores that a litigant’s subjective belief in their case does not give them a license to harass opponents and waste judicial resources with meritless applications.
For legal practitioners and litigants, the case is a stark reminder of the importance of professional conduct and the severe consequences of refusing to accept final court decisions. It demonstrates that courts will not hesitate to extend restrictive orders against individuals who repeatedly make baseless allegations and demonstrate a pattern of refusing to “take no for an answer,” ensuring that the justice system can function efficiently and fairly for all parties.