Drawing the line: Civil Restraint Orders in social housing

In the housing sector, Civil Restraint Orders (CROs) are most often relevant where an individual repeatedly issues court applications that raise no new issues, recycle arguments already rejected by the court, or appear designed to obstruct enforcement rather than resolve any genuine dispute. Used proportionately, they allow the court to intervene without closing the door on legitimate claims.

What is a Civil Restraint Order?

A Civil Restraint Order — or CRO — is used when someone repeatedly makes court applications that have absolutely no merit.

They are governed by Practice Direction 3C of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). The CPR describes the relevant applications as those that are “totally without merit”. Once a party has made two or more such applications, the court may consider imposing a CRO. 

A CRO does not ban someone from accessing the courts altogether. Instead, it introduces an important safeguard: before the person can make any further applications covered by the order, they must first obtain the judge’s permission. That judicial filter is particularly valuable in housing cases, where repeated applications can cause delay, drain resources and place real pressure on officers and residents alike.

Why CROs matter in housing cases

The purpose of CROs is straightforward:

• to protect court time; and
• to prevent harassment by way of litigation.

In the housing context, they can be especially important. Some individuals may issue repeated claims or applications against housing providers or individual officers as a form of pressure, disruption or delay. Even when those applications have no merit, each one still requires time, attention and response.

CROs provide a structured mechanism to bring that cycle to an end, while still preserving access to justice. A genuinely arguable application can still be made — but only with the court’s permission.

The three types of Civil Restraint Order

CROs operate on a clear escalation model.

• Limited CRO: This is the starting point and the most common. A Limited CRO applies only to the specific set of proceedings in which the meritless applications have been made. The person must obtain permission before making any further application in that case.
• Extended CRO: If the behaviour extends beyond one case, the court may impose an Extended CRO. This applies across a defined group of courts (for example, several County Courts within a circuit). It lasts for three years and can be renewed.
• General CRO: The most serious form. A General CRO applies to all County Courts and the High Court. It also lasts three years and can be extended. Breaching a General CRO is contempt of court and may result in serious sanctions, including imprisonment. This is reserved for the most persistent and abusive litigation behaviour.

A helpful way to think about CROs is as a ladder of restriction:

Limited → Extended → General.

The more persistent the behaviour, the higher up that ladder the court may move.

How CROs are made

A CRO can be applied for by any party, using the Part 23 procedure, and the applicant must specify whether a Limited, Extended or General CRO is sought.

Practice Direction 3C includes standard forms:

• N19 – Limited CRO
• N19A – Extended CRO
• N19B – General CRO

Alternatively, the court can impose a CRO of its own initiative, often where an application or claim has just been dismissed and expressly recorded as being totally without merit.

What happens if a CRO is breached?

If someone subject to a CRO issues a further application without permission, the consequences are immediate. The application is automatically dismissed. The judge does not need to make a fresh order, and the other party is not required to respond.

A person subject to a CRO can apply for it to be varied or set aside, but - crucially - they must first obtain permission to do so. Any such request must be made in writing and served on the other party.

It is important to appreciate that breach of a Civil Restraint Order is a serious matter. In the case of a General CRO, any breach constitutes contempt of court, and the court may impose the usual sanctions available for contempt, including fines, sequestration of assets, or imprisonment. Even where a Limited or Extended CRO is breached, the court is likely to take a robust view, given that such orders are only made after a clear pattern of procedural abuse has been identified.

Practical takeaways for housing providers

For housing providers, it can be helpful simply to have an awareness of Civil Restraint Orders and the situations where they may be useful. That awareness can shape how a case is handled as it develops. Keeping a few practical points in mind can make it easier to recognise patterns early and deal with vexatious litigation in a more structured and confident way.

A few key points to keep in mind:

• Identify patterns early. Behaviour often spans multiple teams and cases. Sharing information internally is essential.
• Look back as well as forward. Earlier claims and applications can be relevant, even if they were not expressly labelled “totally without merit”.
• Be clear in correspondence. Explain why an application lacks merit and that you may seek a finding to that effect.
• Ask for the wording. If an application is dismissed, request that the order expressly states it was “totally without merit”. That wording makes any future CRO application far more straightforward.

Final thoughts

Civil Restraint Orders are powerful procedural tools. They stop repeated, meritless applications in their tracks, save court time and protect parties from litigation abuse – without shutting out genuine issues.

They are not everyday kit, but when the threshold is met, and they are used proportionately, they can be an effective way of drawing a clear line and restoring fair, efficient case management in housing litigation.

Emily Hope is a Senior Associate at Clarke Willmott.