1. LORD JUSTICE ROSE: There is before the court an application by the Attorney General who seeks, pursuant to an application made to the court on 12th June of this year for a civil proceedings order under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, an interlocutory restraining order against the respondent Reginald John Jamieson.

2. The Attorney General authorised proceedings to apply for a civil proceedings order on 17^th May this year. The position in summary outline is that between July 1998 and the beginning of April this year the respondent is said to have brought ten separate actions in the Birkenhead County Court each of which has either been struck out by an order of the court or has been automatically struck out, as appears to have been the position in relation to the first of the ten actions.

3. The majority of the claims are made against the Wirral Borough Council, the fourth is a claim against that Council’s solicitors and the eighth is a claim against that Council’s counsel seeking one million pounds in damages for defamation.

4. The respondent has been a tenant of the Council for many years and in 1993 he successfully sued the Council and attained from the County Court judge an order of specific performance in relation to outstanding repair works and a sum in excess of £2,000 by way of damages for inconvenience. The property at which he was then living was 24 Charterhouse, Wallasey. Subsequently, in 1995, he terminated that tenancy and was rehoused at 57C Leasowe Road Wallasey.

5. The nature of the ten claims which he has unsuccessfully instituted is set out in the schedule of civil actions which is with the papers, and for present purposes it is unnecessary to rehearse any more detail in relation to those. It suffices to say that to my mind there appears to be a strong prima facie case for the making of a civil proceedings order under section 42.

6. What is of particular further materiality today is that, since the last of those actions was struck out, at the beginning of April, Mr Jamieson has shown a continuing enthusiasm for pungent correspondence and the potential for further recourse to the courts. There is a document, dated the day after the last of the actions was struck out, which is at pages 376-379 of the bundle. There is a further similar document which appears bearing the same date and is at pages 380-381 of the bundle and on 17^th May there is a document at pages 382-383 which contains the following material observation, apparently by Mr Jamieson: “This case will be on-going. ? Till. I’m not in any rush”. There are further documents before the court dated 22^2nd June of this year indicating a wish on the respondent’s behalf to complain and to appeal. There are further comments by the respondent on the letter from the Treasury Solicitor dated 19^th June to the respondent notifying him of the application being made today for an injunction. The substance of those comments is that the respondent is being treated to a great deal of rubbish.

7. In my judgment, no date, apparently, at present being available for the hearing of the substantive application in this case, the circumstances require the making of an interlocutory order prohibiting the respondent, by himself, his servants or agents, (a) from instituting civil proceedings in any court without leave of the High Court; (b) from taking any further step in any civil proceedings in any court before the making of this order without permission of the High Court; and (c) from making any application other than an application for permission under this order without permission of the High Court in any civil proceedings instituted whether by the respondent or anyone else in any court. Furthermore, this is a case in which, as it seems to me, an order for expedition for the hearing of the substantive application should be made.