Litigant who brought meritless claims against firms issued with extended civil restraint order

The High Court has granted an extended civil restraint order against a businessman ‘motivated by an overriding sense of personal injustice’, after he issued meritless proceedings against two law firms.

Derek Banner initially brought proceedings in Sweden, where he is a citizen, over allegations that a format devised by him for a TV gameshow was copied. His claim was dismissed by the Stockholm District Court and his application to appeal was dismissed by the Swedish Court of Appeal and, later, the Swedish Supreme Court. 

Banner assigned his IP rights to his company and brought a claim in the High Court which was dismissed. Banner then ‘turned his ire’ on Fox Williams LLP and Wiggin LLP, his previous solicitors and those representing the successful defendants. He also made allegations of professional misconduct against the firm representing Fox Williams, its insurers, and individual solicitors and partners.

Banner sought damages against the firms of £55m, plus aggravated and exemplary damages for fraud and corruption against Fox Williams. Summary judgment against Banner was granted. His appeal was refused and certified as totally without merit.

The judgment in Banner Universal Motion Pictures Limited v Wiggin LLP & Anor  records Banner ‘refusing to take “no” as the answer’ in applying to reopen the appeal. That application was rejected and certified as totally without merit.

Mr Justice Mellor said: ‘Since then, over many months Mr Banner has bombarded the court with letters and emails which make it clear that he continues to refuse to recognise the validity of the orders made by Richard Smith J. and Trower J.. Despite being told (correctly) that his appeal was at an end, Mr Banner refuses to accept this.’

The judge added: ‘Leaving aside the precise number of certifications of totally without merit, I am entirely satisfied that Mr Banner, via his company, the appellant, has persistently issued claims or made applications which are totally without merit. In so finding, I also find that Mr Banner was the "real party" behind all the unmeritorious claims and applications brought by the appellant.’

Making an extended civil restraint order, the judge said: ‘It is relevant to keep in mind the accusations of professional misconduct, fraud and dishonesty which Mr Banner has levelled against individual solicitors in his crusade, all of which have been dismissed as totally without merit.’