Borrowers restrained from issuing new proceedings against financial institution without leave

The Plaintiffs applied for an order restraining the Defendants, who had purchased a property with a loan from the First Plaintiff, from taking proceedings against the Plaintiffs, or their servants or agents, without leave of the High Court, in circumstances where ten sets of proceedings between the parties were in existence.

The Defendants purchased a property in 2007 with a loan from the Plaintiff. The loan was restructured two years later in 2009 and then a further agreement was entered into in 2013, after the Defendants defaulted. Receivers were appointed over the property and, subsequently, the Defendants issued several sets of proceedings against the Bank.

The Plaintiffs then applied for an order restraining the Defendants from issuing any proceedings against them. The court acknowledged that the Defendants had a history of commencing proceedings against various parties and noted, also, that the Defendants had a habit of discontinuing those proceedings only to later seek to have them re-entered. The court did, however,  also add that the "jurisdiction to make an Isaac Wunder Order should be exercised sparingly and on an exceptional basis".

The court concluded that an order which is restricted to the terms sought was appropriate. The court made the order and applied some limitations to it. The restriction applied only to the institution of new proceedings and not to the re-entry of existing proceedings.