A serial losing litigant has been ordered to pay £30,000 costs after a failed attempt to have his adversaries committed for contempt.

Mr Justice Pepperall said Richard Achille had been a ‘prolific’ litigant since his expulsion from the Moseley Tennis Club in 2014, with 13 different claims or applications found to be without merit.

Achille has since been subject to two civil restraint orders but he continues to blame his opponents, their lawyers and insurers, court staff and judge for his situation.

With the most recent civil restraint order having expired, his sought to bring contempt proceedings to commit the club’s former chairman and secretary. Pepperall ruled in February that these applications were totally without merit and he heard from the parties on whether to make a further order and to decide on costs.

In the ruling, the judge rejected Achille’s submission that he should make a limited civil restraint order, concluding that this would still allow the litigant to sue the other parties. A three-year order was deemed ‘both necessary and appropriate given Mr Achille’s persistence after all this time and the failure of earlier orders to bring this conduct to an end’.

’Mr Achille has demonstrated an alarming lack of insight into his own responsibility for having pursued a substantial number of claims and applications that were totally without merit over the course of a decade,’ said the judge.

On the issue of costs, Pepperall said Achille had ‘somewhat optimistically’ argued that those he wanted to commit should be ordered to pay his costs. Alternatively, it was argued there should be no order for costs as the contempt proceedings had arisen out of drafting errors by the defendants and their lawyers.

He further submitted that he enjoyed the protection of qualified one-way costs shifting which could limit the costs ordered against him. Achille acknowledged that QOCS applies only to personal injury proceedings but he told the court that the contempt allegations arose from a claim that included personal injuries.

The judge said there was no merit in any of his arguments and that Achille had failed to establish that contempt proceedings were in the public interest and proportionate. These proceedings did not include a claim for personal injuries and were not caught by QOCS rules. He directed that Achille pay the defendants’ costs on the standard basis.

 

This article is now closed for comment.